Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CITY OF LONDON (SPITALFIELDS MARKET) BILL (By Order)

Order for Third Reading read.

To be read the Third time on Thursday 12 January.

AVON LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT BILL [Lords] (By Order)

LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT (PENALTY FARES) BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Thursday 12 January.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

Management Qualifications

Mr. Cran: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proportion of undergraduates are currently taking degrees or other qualifications in management or management-related subjects; what was the figure 10 years ago; and what is the figure for other major west European countries.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Robert Jackson): In 1987, 18 per cent. of undergraduates were studying management or management-related subjects. The equivalent figure for 1980, the earliest year for which comparable figures are available, was 16 per cent. These figures relate to universities in Great Britain and polytechnics and colleges in England.
Comparisons with other major west European countries are difficult, given difficulties of definition, but our best estimates are, France 9 per cent., Germany 3 per cent., Italy 2 per cent. and Spain 5 per cent.

Mr. Cran: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not the fault of higher education in this country that, according to the Handy report, only 24 per cent. of British managers have a first degree or equivalent qualification, whereas the equivalent figures for the United States and West Germany are 84 per cent. and 64 per cent. respectively? Will my hon. Friend therefore use his best endeavours to get British industry to recognise where its self-interest lies, especially against a background in which the CBI and the British Institute of Management recognise that there is a close correlation between an educated work force and management and higher productivity?

Mr. Jackson: I am not sure whether I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that any sort of degree is what a manager needs. Managers need adequate training in relevant skills. That is what lies behind the management charter initiative, which the Government strongly support —both directly and as an employer. We urge industry and other employers to become members of that initiative so that even more employees will have a chance to develop essential management skills.

Sir John Stokes: Does my hon. Friend agree that, important though academic qualifications are—we all realise that—the essentials for a manager are personal qualities such as inventiveness, leadership, courage and decision, which are not always to be learnt at university?

Mr. Jackson: I agree with my hon. Friend and I draw his attention to the interesting enterprise and higher education initiative sponsored by the Department of Employment and designed to foster precisely those qualities among university students.

National Curriculum

Mr. Macdonald: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received concerning the case for a full science programme in the national curriculum.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Baker): The National Curriculum Council has recommended that the majority of science pupils in years four and five in secondary school should work to a double GCSE award taking up about 20 per cent. of curriculum time, but that a choice of taking one GCSE award should be available to some taking up about 12·5 per cent. of time. I have accepted that recommendation, and this is reflected in the draft orders which I published yesterday.

Mr. Macdonald: Does not the right hon. Gentleman's failure to insist on a 20 per cent. science element in the national curriculum mean that the original idea for a broad national curriculum is now dead and that the curriculum will do nothing to increase the number of girls studying science at A-level, nothing to increase the number of graduates studying science at university and nothing to diminish the ignorance in society about science, which does such great harm to our economy?

Mr. Baker: The double award science will cover 17 attainment targets and the single award, which is very demanding, will cover 10. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the system will be broad and balanced. I was a little puzzled that the hon. Gentleman asked me that question, coming as he does from Scotland—[MON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]—because the Scottish system is the kind that the national curriculum is about to recommend.

Mr. Foulkes: Try learning science in Gaelic.

Mr. Baker: Even those pupils in Scotland who try to learn in Gaelic, or whatever language, can spend varying amounts of time on science—from 10 per cent. up to 30 per cent.—and I shall introduce that flexibility into the English education system.

Mr. Forman: I welcome my right hon. Friend's initial reply, but will he take account of the fact that many Conservative Members would like to see the fullest


possible contribution of science to the national curriculum? If the potential shortage of teachers could be a difficulty in that regard, will he consider carefully the possibility of bringing people of mature years from the private sector later in their careers?

Mr. Baker: I assure my hon. Friend that I, too, want to see much more science studied at school and this proposal represents a big improvement. About one third of our young people at school give up science at the age of 14, but under the national curriculum every boy and girl, particularly girls, will have to take it up to the age of 16, along with technology. That is an enormous step forward.
I want to encourage more people to come into the teaching profession who have had other careers, particularly in business and I have proposals, on which we are consulting, to ease their entry into the teaching profession. Such people have a lot to offer.

Mr. Straw: The Secretary of State must be aware that by rejecting the recommendations of his own science working party he has produced a downgraded two-tier science curriculum that virtually no one in education wants and which will hit the education of a great many people, especially that of girls. Why does he not accept and admit that he has taken this step because of the alarming, and increasing, shortage of science teachers reflected in a 15 per cent. drop in entrants to chemistry teaching? Does he not realise that people outside are also deeply concerned about his proposals, and that Mr. Denis Filer, director general of the Engineering Council has said that his council believes that the narrower syllabus will be insufficient to deliver an adequate balanced science programme to all young people?

Mr. Baker: The proposals before the House in the draft orders represent a tremendous and significant improvement in science in schools. It did not meet with all that much support when we debated the matter in the Standing Committee on the Education Reform Bill, but I leave that aside. In addition to science, all children up to the age of 16 will now have to take technology. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I have not rejected the proposals of the National Curriculum Council—a body which, by statute, advises me. The council advised me to do this and I have accepted its advice. I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that one third of the schools which made representations said that they wanted that flexibility—the very flexibility that I was pressed to introduce into the curriculum by the Opposition in Committee.

City Technology Colleges

Mr. Irvine: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress is being made in finding sites for city technology colleges; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Baker: The CTC programme continues to make excellent progress. Kinghurst CTC opened in September, Nottingham and Teesside CTCs will open next year, and there are plans for other CTCs in 1990, including one in Bradford.

Mr. Irvine: Is it not sadly true that my right hon. Friend's task of finding suitable sites for CTCs has been made immeasurably more difficult by the refusal of Labour-controlled councils in deprived inner-city areas to

co-operate in finding and making available such sites? Is it not also true that it is precisely the parents and children who live in those deprived inner-city areas, controlled by such councils, who stand to gain most from the introduction of CTCs?

Mr. Baker: My hon. Friend is completely correct. Some authorities are willing to co-operate in providing sites but the great majority—virtually all of them Labour-controlled
—are not. We now have sponsors for more than the 20 CTCs that I want to set up. We can go above 20 and we are now searching for sites. Those schools are designed to help children from the deprived inner cities. Where they have been set up they are doing so and will continue to do so.

Mr. Clelland: The Secretary of State will be aware that one of the sites that he has in mind is in Gateshead in my constituency, but is he aware that the amount of money that he intends to spend on that school is more than the total that he has allowed the local authority for all its schools? Is not that a disgrace? Since it was recently revealed that only 7 per cent. of his hon. Friends support priority expenditure in this area, is it not time that he abandoned the idea?

Mr. Baker: On the contrary, the CTCs are popular schools. They have been by far the most popular schools wherever they have been set up. The applications for Kingshurst already show that, as do the applications for those in Middlesbrough and Nottingham which are not even open yet. There have been substantial contributions from the private sector. More than £31 million has been pledged by the private sector for this initiative. No other education effort has brought forth such support from the private business world.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: Does my right hon. Friend agree that surplus land and buildings held by local education authorities are held in trust? Should they not make that surplus available to possible CTCs rather than forcing very expensive new-build on fresh land—as was necessary in Nottingham, although I warmly welcome the college being built in that city?

Mr. Baker: I was happy to lay the foundation stone about three weeks ago. That college will be very successful —a beacon in technological education. It was only when the Conservatives had control of Nottingham city council that planning permission was given, because the Conservatives had the wisdom to give it. I am sure that control of Nottingham city council will return to us in the future. Far too many councils have a dog-in-the-manger attitude, sitting on underutilised land and empty schools when it would be much better to make those buildings available for CTCs.

Mr. Madden: Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to announce his decision about the suggestion that I put to him in writing immediately after the announcement of the Bradford CTC—that parents in Bradford should be balloted to decide whether available taxpayers' money amounting to £8 million should be spent on a CTC in Bradford or on improving existing schools there, many of which are in a deplorable condition?

Mr. Baker: This year's capital programme for Bradford was substantially expanded when I approved the figures only a year ago. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the


Bradford school will go ahead. The land has now been bought and the school will be a tremendous success in Bradford, which needs new schools. I look forward to laying that foundation stone as well.

Mr. Squire: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, whether it is measured by the degree of parental interest or by the surge in support from industry—or even by the large number of teachers applying to teach in these schools —the CTC experiment will turn out to be an unqualified success? The Opposition must be careful lest they again find themselves saddled with opposing something that is both politically and educationally popular.

Mr. Baker: I am sure that in the months ahead we shall see a movement of opinion on the Opposition Benches towards favouring CTCs. Their conversion will be welcome, for CTCs will be very popular and very successful.

Extra-curricular Activities

Mr. Janner: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement concerning financial provision for extra-curricular activities.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. John Butcher): The Education Reform Act responded to pressure to clarify the law on charging for school activities. Schools may not charge for provision offered during school hours, with the exception of individual music tuition. They may charge for extra-curricular activities provided outside school hours, as long as these are not an essential part of the curriculum. Local authorities and schools can still invite parents to make voluntary contributions towards the cost of any school activity, but the child's participation in the activity must not be dependent on the parents' willingness to contribute.

Mr. Janner: Does the Minister not recognise that the new rules will effectively kill off the vast majority of school visits overseas, almost all of which take place in term time? Some 40,000 Leicestershire children have benefited from those important educational opportunities in the past few years, but they will no longer be able to do so. Will the Minister reconsider this wicked invasion of the rights of schools to provide extra-curricular activities which in their own way, as the Minister himself has said, are as valuable as much that goes on in the school term?

Mr. Butcher: I can only assume that the hon. and learned Gentleman has deliberately misunderstood the import of what is proposed. As he knows, it was in response to representations from local education authorities and under pressure from certain judicial decisions that we had to recodify this part of the law. Those who wish to enjoy trips abroad, for language purposes and so on, will still be able to do so—

Mr. Janner: If they can afford it.

Mr. Butcher: Parents will be asked for a contribution. Most parents who were willing to pay charges before are unlikely to refuse a voluntary contribution if they regard an activity as educationally worthwhile.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: Is my hon. Friend aware that trips which are more localised than those referred to by the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) are in great danger? In my education authority of Berkshire all school trips have been cancelled, which is causing great concern to parents and teachers. It seems that the code and regulations are the exact opposite of what the House and the Government wanted.

Mr. Butcher: The full circular will be issued in January. In response to representations from hon. Members, and particularly from my hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay), I have asked officials to ensure that it eliminates any ambiguities in the draft circular which may have caused concern to some local authorities. Some local authorities have been better than others at interpreting the draft circular to allow current practices to continue.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Can the Minister assure the House that the circular will not mark the beginning of a two-tier state education system—one for students with no parental support, whose parents cannot afford an increasing number of activities after school and during the holidays, and another in which an increasing range of activities will be paid for by parents with money, thus giving their children all the advantages that until now have been free and available for all?

Mr. Butcher: That is simply not correct. The kind of trips about which hon. Members are concerned have not necessarily been free in the past. We have been anxious to find a way to retain and codify the principle of free school education while still permitting flexibility for voluntary contributions to be made.
As for hardship, I do not see why the legislation should lead to increased pressure on school budgets. If activities are worthwhile, parents will surely still be willing to contribute to their cost, but LEAs and schools—this answers the hon. Gentleman's point—will have discretion as before to help in cases of hardship.

Smoking

Mr. Amos: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will include education about the dangers of smoking in the school curriculum; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Butcher: Health education has been identified by the Government as an important cross-curricular theme to be covered by different foundation subjects within the national curriculum. As a result, different foundation subject working groups are being asked to cover appropriate aspects of health education within their recommendations. For example, the science working group recommends that all pupils should receive education within the science curriculum about the harmful effects of smoking. My right hon. Friend is now considering this, along with all the recommendations made by the council on science.

Mr. Amos: I am grateful for that positive reply. As 19 per cent. of fifth form boys and 30 per cent. of fifth form girls are regular smokers, will my hon. Friend have discussions to ensure that all staff set an example by not being allowed to smoke in public areas of their schools?

Mr. Butcher: As always, that will be a matter for the schools themselves. Most of them will observe the sort of practices that my hon. Friend wants. There have been improvements and reductions in the proportion of our youngsters who smoke, but we should not see that as the end of the story. Health education and personal and social education should make young people aware of the dangers of smoking.

Dr. Moonie: In view of the Minister's concern about the problem of smoking, will he ensure that the CTC in Teesside, which is sponsored by British American Tobacco, carries a Government health warning?

Mr. Butcher: I shall be charitable and interpret the hon. Gentleman's question as a serious one. I am sure that the parts of the curriculum which relate to health education in the maintained sector will still be relevant in that school.

Mr. Key: Will my hon. Friend also take a serious look at the problem of smoking on school buses? Can he confirm that it is illegal for drivers of school buses and other public service vehicles to smoke on duty?

Mr. Butcher: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I shall draw the attention of the appropriate officials at the Department to that point to see whether the inspectorate should focus on it.

National Curriculum

Mr. Morley: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he is now in a position to publish the quantity and type of teachers required to teach the national curriculum; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: My Department's memorandum to the Education, Science and Arts Select Committee on teacher supply includes some tentative estimates of teacher demand in national curriculum subjects. I have placed a copy in the Library.

Mr. Morley: We have already discussed the problem of science teachers, but there are also considerable teacher shortages in mathematics and mechanical subjects. Can the Minister assure the House that those shortages will be dealt with before the national curriculum comes into effect? Can he speculate whether denying teachers their civil right of pay negotiation and imposing on them pay settlements that are less than inflation do much for teacher recruitment?

Mr. Baker: On the latter point, we must await the report of the interim advisory committee. On the first point, on the estimates that I have made, we expect overall teacher supply and demand to be in balance in the 1990s. That, of course, reflects certain shortages in science, mathematics and technology, which I have acknowledged, and we must take steps to improve recruitment. We have a bursary scheme for students who wish to take teacher training in those subjects. As I said earlier, in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman), we want to attract people from other careers into teaching and to encourage teachers who have stopped teaching for some time to come back into teaching.

Mr. Pawsey: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the quality of the teaching force is just as important as the

quantity? Is he, therefore, satisfied that the teacher training colleges are producing graduates of the relevant quality and that the syllabuses that they are following have particular relevance to today's schools? Also, are the teachers capable of keeping control in the classroom?

Mr. Baker: We have improved the quality of teacher training considerably over the past three or four years, but I am the first to recognise that more needs to be done. It is clear that those going through teacher training need more experience in the classroom and less study of subjects such as the history of education. Certainly, trainee teachers should be trained in the techniques of controlling a class.

Mr. Straw: Does the Secretary of State not accept that something is seriously wrong when, on his own figures, three in 10 newly qualified teachers fail to go into teaching straight away and nearly four in 10 new teachers leave the profession within five years?
The Secretary of State has increased his own publicity budget by 2,900 per cent. since taking office. Why does he not devote the same attention to dealing with the central problem of schools—teacher shortages—as he does to the production of self-serving glossy pamphlets? Was the Spectator correct when it said recently that the Secretary of State is
trading short term political advantage for the longer term interests of the education system"?

Mr. Baker: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman reads the Spectator. That is a great improvement on what is usually read by Labour Members. We are now promoting the career of teaching very strongly as part of a departmental campaign. This year, 1,000 more people want to become teachers than last year and 3,000 more than two years ago. We have stopped the decline and we have recovered from the bad time of the teachers' strikes. We want to encourage more people who have been trained as teachers to come back into the teaching profession. About 50 per cent. of entrants into teaching each year are those who are returning. We must make it more attractive for people to return to the profession.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is strong support for the reform of the national curriculum and for the other measures in the Education Reform Act? Will he bear in mind the continuing shortage of highly qualified teachers of physics and mathematics, and will he do all that he can to ensure a better supply of well qualified pupils for university science and engineering departments?

Mr. Baker: I agree. There are bursaries of £1,300 per year for those who want to train as physics, mathematics or technology teachers. We want to attract people, perhaps in their 30s, to undertake a career switch from other careers to teaching, especially if they have a science or engineering background. Such people have much to bring to teaching, not only in knowledge but in maturity.

Mr. Hardy: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proportion of the time available for the education of the age group eight to 11 years will be needed to meet the requirements of the national curriculum.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): Decisions on timetabling the national curriculum will be for individual schools.

Mr. Hardy: Is the Minister aware that many eminent and expert educationists fear that the requirements of the national curriculum will occupy virtually the whole time available in primary schools? As British primary education is frequently effective and very often excellent, will the Minister reconsider the requirements to ensure that flexibility is not prohibited?

Mrs. Rumbold: I think that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the report of the speech made recently by an HMI, who said that in primary schools, in particular, the core subjects would obviously take up the majority of the time—.

Mr. Hardy: All the time.

Mrs. Rumbold: No, he suggested that primary schools would need to examine closely the timetabling of mathematics and English and of the science parts of the core curriculum. That is perfectly true, but he went on to say that it would be possible, and most desirable, for primary schools to manage their affairs to include such matters as environmental and health education.

Mr. Alton: Given what the Secretary of State said about engineering and technology, is it not ironic that a group of primary school teachers whom I met yesterday in Liverpool had received yet another booklet from the DES, this time urging the teaching of classics to five to 11-year-olds? Does not the Minister have some sympathy with their complaint that the teaching of basic subjects such as arithmetic and reading to children—many of whom will otherwise leave school unable to read and write —must come first? Does she not agree that what we really need is more resources, particularly for remedial teaching?

Mrs. Rumbold: It is important that all children should leave school with the basics—the three Rs; every one of us would agree with that. Nevertheless, it is also important for other subjects, such as classics, to be highlighted by the HMI, as they were in an excellent publication, which I recommend the hon. Gentleman to read.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: When considering the primary phase of the national curriculum, will my hon. Friend confirm that despite recent study groups and newspaper reports, the national curriculum will reflect the manifest needs of primary school children to learn grammatical and structured English and arithmetical ability, as well as to use pocket computers? Will my hon. Friend also ensure that the assessment test at seven reflects that interest?

Mrs. Rumbold: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already denounced as absolute rubbish the articles that appeared in the newspapers yesterday and over the weekend. The questions that were printed were examples taken from the existing work by the working group on mathematics, whose report was then submitted to the National Curriculum Council, which has done considerably more work since then. The School Examination and Assessment Council has just let the contract for the new assessment tests for the core subjects for the three different organisations to work on. I assure

my hon. Friend that Ministers are expecting simple comprehensible tests in the core subjects to be used in the classroom in the future.

Mr. Flannery: Does the Minister not realise that he or she is completely underestimating the difficulties that will arise while the national curriculum is taking root? Are not large numbers of primary school teachers feeling the pressures at this moment? Teachers who are not properly equipped to teach science, for instance, are trying their best to teach it with inadequate resources. That is causing them deep worry, because they honestly want to do their best and they do not have the resources to carry out the preparation for the national curriculum.

Mrs. Rumbold: First, let me assure the hon. Gentleman that I am a she. The resources expected to be spent in the year 1989–90 include £130 million on the development of in-service training and other work associated with the national curriculum. I do not think that it is legitimate to suggest that teachers will not have sufficient resources. I fully understand that they will have to undertake in-service training and two extra days have been allocated especially for that work to take place this year.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be helpful to advise parents not to do the homework of children aged between eight and 11, or the GCSE coursework of older children, in the interests of their children's learning and of sound results?

Mrs. Rumbold: My hon. Friend is right to say that parents should not do their children's homework, but it is important that parents encourage their children to do homework and are ready to answer any questions that their children may ask.

Nursery Teachers

Ms. Mowlam: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether his Department has any plans to increase the number or nursery teachers; and if he will make a statement.

Mrs. Rumbold: Target places for primary initial teacher training will have increased by more than 60 per cent. between 1983 and 1989. Within their allocations, institutions have been asked to give greater emphasis to training for the early years, which includes nursery teaching.

Ms. Mowlam: Will the Minister assure the House that the training that will be offered to those additional teachers will qualify them fully in specific teaching for three to five-year-olds and will not be just general training? We wish to be sure that the specific needs of three to five-year-olds are taken into account in such training.

Mrs. Rumbold: Training for the early years, which is being undertaken by many teachers, will include the matters that the hon. Lady has mentioned.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: Will my hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to the voluntary nursery sector? Will she ensure that, when promoting nursery education, local authorities do not undermine the voluntary sector, as the dogmatic Hertfordshire county council is doing at Wigginton and Grove Hill in my constituency?

Mrs. Rumbold: Uniquely in Britain we have a wide choice of pre-school education, which is extremely important and valuable to children and their parents. I agree with my hon. Friend that that choice should be maintained.

Ms. Armstrong: Does the Minister recognise that there are grave shortages of nursery teachers in many areas? As the Secretary of State supported the Prime Minister when she pledged that 50 per cent. of three-year-olds and 90 per cent. of four-year-olds would have nursery places, will the Minister spell out the action that the Government will take to achieve that target?

Mrs. Rumbold: The hon. Lady may be interested in the following figures. In 1980, shortly after this Government took office, 404,000 three to four-year-olds received pre-school education. That was 37·1 per cent. of the age group. In 1988, the figure rose to 505,000. More than 100,000 more three to four-year-olds are now in school.

Mr. Favell: Does my hon. Friend agree that the person best equipped to teach a three to five-year-old is the mother?

Mrs. Rumbold: My hon. Friend is right to say that the mother is one of the most important people in the child's early development. Children who do not have the benefit of mothers talking to and caring for them are unfortunate. It is most desirable that children also have the opportunity to attend play groups or nursery school.

Student Loans

Mr. Wallace: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received concerning the White Paper "Top-up Loans for Students"; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Yeo: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received regarding his proposals for top-up loans for students.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: Since the publication on 9 November of the Government's White Paper on top-up loans for students, about 3,600 representations have been received expressing a variety of views.

Mr. Wallace: Have any of those representations drawn to the Secretary of State's attention surveys which tend to show that the top-up loans scheme would deter from entering university people who are already under-represented—those in low-income brackets, disabled students, mature students and women? Has he also received representations from Scotland about the lack of reference in the White Paper to the special circumstances in Scotland, which has a four-year honours degree course? Is the Secretary of State satisfied that his proposals will not undermine that cornerstone of Scottish education?

Mr. Baker: Our proposals on top-up loans will not deter children from the lower, disadvantaged socio-economic groups from going into higher education. Where there are loan schemes in the rest of the world, and in Europe, in particular, not only do those countries spend less than we do on student support, but a much higher proportion of youngsters from lower socio-economic groups go into higher education. We have managed to

combine the highest expenditure on higher education in Europe—compared with our gross national product—with the lowest uptake by youngsters. The loan scheme is an attempt to increase access, and I am sure that it will succeed.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Colin Shepherd.

Mr. Yeo: What about my question No. 17?

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Yeo, then.

Mr. Yeo: Does my right hon. Friend agree that since graduates generally enjoy above-average incomes it is entirely fair that they should contribute directly to part of the cost of their higher education, especially as there will be protection for graduates on below-average incomes?

Mr. Baker: In annex D of the White Paper we calculate that the benefit to students from investing in higher education brings a return of about 25 per cent. Most graduates earn well above average earnings and virtually no new graduates are unemployed. If a new graduate is unemployed, it is by choice.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the Secretary of State accept that one of the most worrying aspects of the scheme is the effect that it will have on medical students? Will the Minister tell us whether there have been any representations from the banks or building societies about their willingness to run the scheme?

Mr. Baker: Since the publication of the White Paper, we have had constructive meetings with the banks, building societies and other financial institutions to consider the details of the scheme and to find out how best it can be administered. I hope that those meetings will lead to a fruitful conclusion.

Mr. Rhodes James: Will my right hon. Friend emphasise that the White Paper is only a consultation paper on which comments are invited by 1 February? Will he suggest to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that the House might be involved in that process and have a debate next month in Government time? With all Christmas benevolence, will my right hon. Friend follow the sage advice of Sir Winston Churchill on a similar occasion and take the paper upstairs and cut its dirty throat?

Mr. Baker: I said earlier that we had received 3,600 representations; we have now had 3,601. I am aware of my hon. Friend's views. I should be happy to have a debate, but I do not determine the timetable of the House. I am sure that my hon. Friend's recommendation will have been heard. We have had support from many parts of the education world, including the university town that my hon. Friend represents. Many people feel that it is right that students, who benefit enormously from higher education, should make some contribution towards their maintenance while at college.

Mr. Fatchett: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the proposed loan scheme will cost the taxpayer more than £600 million by the end of the century without opening up access to higher education? Will he also confirm that to increase grants by the rate of inflation over the same period would cost less than one third of the cost of introducing the proposed top-up loan scheme? Why do the


Government intend to introduce a scheme which will push students further into debt, while not adding one extra student to higher education?

Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman confirms the point that I have always made. The proposal is not meant to cut the amount of money spent on higher education but to increase it. I do not believe that it will reduce access because it will provide many students with a certainty of income that they do not have now. Also, it will provide at least 50,000 students who do not qualify for grants access to top-up loans.

Teachers (Assessment)

Mr. Bellingham: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what further proposals he has for the assessment and appraisal of teachers; and if he will make a statement.

Mrs. Rumbold: Appraisal of teachers is currently being piloted in six local education authorities, with special funding through education support grant. We plan to make regulations in autumn next year requiring all LEAs to introduce appraisal for all their teachers over three or four years.

Mr. Bellingham: Does the Minister agree that, contrary to what is being put out by some of the teachers' unions, the key to the proposals is not to get rid of bad teachers but to help them? Is she aware that the overwhelming majority of Norfolk teachers to whom I have spoken broadly welcome the proposals because they see them as a crucial ingredient in raising education standards?

Mrs. Rumbold: My hon. Friend is right. The local authorities already have proper dismissal procedures should they wish to follow them. Appraisal is a different animal. It is designed to assist teachers and to allow them to appraise their own activities within the classroom and rethink them if necessary.

Haberdashers' Aske's Schools

Ms. Ruddock: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent discussions he has regarding the establishment of a city technology college on the site of the Haberdashers' Aske's Hatcham boys and girl schools in Deptford.

Mr. Butcher: None, but the governors have sought technical advice from my officials on matters relating to various options for the schools' future. I understand that they are currently consulting parents about these options.

Ms. Ruddock: Does the Minister not agree, however, that the consultation process that was concluded last week was unfair, in that it promoted the CTC option at the expense of all others at a time when Lewisham council is still in the process of working out its own education policies, as required by the Department? Will he support the parents who are asking for an extension of the consultation period?

Mr. Butcher: The consultation process is a matter for the Government and the parents. We are prepared to trust parents to exercise their democratic rights. It is entirely a matter for the parents as a whole to come to a decision, which we will then consider.

Mr. John Hunt: Is my hon. Friend aware that I have served as a member of this governing body for more than 30 years and that at a meeting of the inner London education authority this very afternoon it is threatening to remove me and the only other Conservative governor simply because we had the temerity to support the CTC proposal? Will my hon. Friend please condemn this attempt at intimidation and recognise that it is an attempt to brainwash and gerrymander the governing body?

Mr. Butcher: I hope that Opposition Members will also condemn some of the things that have been happening at ILEA's behest, apart from the proposed sacking of my hon. Friend from the governing body. As I said earlier, we trust the democratically arrived at views of the parents. They can come to their own conclusion about the treatment meted out to my hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Winnick: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 20 December.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.

Mr. Winnick: Is it not entirely unacceptable to public opinion that a convicted criminal—a known associate of criminals—should have had his shotgun licence given back to him by the judicial authorities? Bearing in mind the tragic events that took place yesterday in Coventry—I pay full tribute to the bravery of the police officers involved —is it not absolutely essential that the controls on shotguns should be far tighter than is provided for in the pending legislation?

The Prime Minister: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, he will know that that is a decision of the courts, taken under the Firearms Act 1968. The new Act, the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988, contains much tougher controls, but it does not come into force until next year.
As for the hon. Gentleman's point about Coventry, I am sure that we all wish quietly to thank the police for their bravery and courage in the face of great danger and for the way in which they constantly strive and succeed in protecting the citizens of this country.

Mr. Batiste: What advice would my right hon. Friend offer to those who will be under pressure tonight to vote against increases in pensions and social security payments?

The Prime Minister: I would offer them this advice: during the lifetime of this Government, expenditure on social security has gone up from £17 billion to £50 billion. That is a remarkable record. We have also tried to target help on those who need it most. If that remarkable record of economic growth and increased help to social security claimants is to continue, I hope that we shall get as much support as possible this evening.

Mr. Allen McKay: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 20 December.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. McKay: As private nursing homes and private homes for the aged are rate-free at the discretion of the local authority, as 95 per cent. of the people who live in those homes receive social security payments and as the homes are inspected twice a year, should not the books also be inspected by the Department of Social Security, since it provides the largest share of the money?

The Prime Minister: That would be taking on a very considerable obligation which I do not think is necessary. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has very much faith in the integrity of those homes. If he has any complaint against any particular home, perhaps he will let the appropriate authority know the facts instead of condemning them all.

Mr. Gale: Further to her earlier answer, will my right hon. Friend find time to discuss with our right hon. Friend the Home Secretary the need to introduce legislation to prohibit entirely the issuing of firearms licences to convicted criminals?

The Prime Minister: It would be best to get the Act that we passed in the previous Session fully into operation first, as it tightens the criteria for the issue of a shotgun certificate. The police will be able to refuse the licence if the applicant does not have a good reason to have a shotgun and they will have to be satisfied that the applicant will not be a danger to public safety. Shotgun owners will be required to keep their shotguns securely to minimise the risk of theft, and all shotguns will have to be registered separately on the certificate. That is a very considerable advance on the present legislation and we should bring it into operation first.

Mr. Kinnock: Following that reply, I am bound to ask: why not let the police be the total decision-makers? [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Kinnock.

Mr. Kinnock: Why does the Prime Minister think that in the six months after April this year, rent arrears in Tory Sutton increased by 40 per cent., in Tory Barnet by 43 per cent. and in Tory Enfield by 63 per cent.?

The Prime Minister: The increases in rent arrears are a matter for concern, but the Department of the Environment and the Audit Commission have stressed the need for better control by local authorities. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned some local authorities, but nearly 50 per cent. of the increased rent arrears are concentrated in just 20 Labour authorities.

Mr. Kinnock: The reports of very great increases in rent arrears come from authorities under every form of political control—Labour, Tory and hung. Is not the huge increase in arrears a direct consequence of the £650 million cut in housing benefits which took place this year? Does the Prime Minister understand that it will get even worse next year when transitional protection runs out and when rents inevitably increase as a consequence of interest rate rises? Will the Prime Minister now reverse the housing benefit cuts or does she want mass evictions in Britain?

The Prime Minister: No. The right hon. Gentleman is aware that housing benefit still applies to one in three

households. That means that every two households contribute towards keeping a third household. I assume that he is well aware that the total cost of housing benefit in 1988–89 is only 2 per cent. lower than in the previous year. That cannot explain a 40 per cent. increase in rent arrears. Local authorities must get round and collect the rent arrears. Those who cannot afford to pay rent still have their rent paid through housing benefit.

Mr. Kinnock: The Prime Minister is deliberately evading the fact that she has withdrawn resources from local authorities and she has robbed some of the poorest families in the country by taking away housing benefit. She, who lives in rent-free accommodation, should not lecture others on the subject.

The Prime Minister: As I said, the poorest have their housing paid for—[Interruption.] The poorest have their rents met 100 per cent. and their rates met to 80 per cent. together with an average payment to meet the rest of the rates. The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that nearly half the rent arrears are concentrated in 20 Labour authorities, that the Audit Commission stressed the need for better control by local authorities and that most of the rent arrears arise because there are insufficient regular collections of rent.

Mr. Marland: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 20 December.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Marland: It is reported in today's newspapers that 77 countries have come to the aid of the Armenian earthquake victims. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the largest cash contributions have come from individual citizens of this country? Does not that underline what a generous and warm-hearted society we have, and will she refute Opposition Members' allegations that we have become selfish and greedy?

The Prime Minister: Yes, the response of this country has been extremely generous, both publicly and privately. There have been 10 flights to the Soviet Union specifically for relief in Armenia, and some of the people who went there, whom we congratulate on their valiant efforts, have returned and told us of the true extent of the devastation. The rescue phase is nearly over and reconstruction will follow, with which obviously we will be willing to help. We thank all those volunteers who offered their good services and raised money. I should like to say that we also thank very much the Soviet ambassador to this country, who has made every effort to see that our help gets to where it is most needed. I should have thought that Opposition Members would also want us to do that.

Mr. Battle: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 20 December.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Battle: Will the Prime Minister assure the House that none of Britain's 3,500 hostels, many of which are specifically for homeless people, will be closed as a result of benefit changes? Or will she tell 50,000 homeless young people who will sleep out in the streets of Britain this Christmas that there will be no room at the hostel?

The Prime Minister: No. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, there is still room in London, for example not only at Centrepoint but at hostels which are specially run for those people. There are special arrangements for paying amounts from social security at Centrepoint, but not at others because there never have been. There are still places available at those hostels.

Mr. Quentin Davies: In contemplating another year of gratifying economic expansion, will my right hon. Friend agree that a most important feature of the encouraging confidence that exists is the unprecedented rate of new business start-ups?

The Prime Minister: Yes, it has been an economically very successful year; unemployment has fallen and the number of jobs has increased. New businesses are starting at the rate of 1,000 a week. Thank goodness we do not have a Socialist Government.

Mr. Bernie Grant: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 20 December.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Grant: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Commission for Racial Equality is unable to prosecute all bona fide cases of racial discrimination because of a lack of funding from her Government? As a result, black and ethnic minority people are denied their legal rights of protection from racial discrimination. Does she agree that this is disgraceful, and will she confirm that her Government support the prosecution of racists under the Race Relations Act 1976? Will she confirm that she will provide enough funds for the commission to do its job?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is aware that prosecution is a matter not for me but the Crown prosecuting authorities. Spending on legal aid has risen more rapidly than most other expenditure in this country.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: Will my right hon. Friend consider setting up a constitutional conference on electoral reform, or does she share my view that those who are now advocating proportional representation merely illustrate their perceived inability to be elected?

The Prime Minister: I will not set up such a conference. Governments who are elected by that means tend to be weak and cannot take decisions, and there are too many of those already.

Mr. Flannery: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 20 December.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Flannery: Does the Prime Minister realise that cuts in housing benefit have sent large numbers of old people to citizens advice bureaux? Due to the operation of the community programme, the activities of such bureaux, especially in my area, have been cut. They do not have enough people to service the needs of old people, many of whom are breaking down in front of the staff of citizens advice bureaux. Will she kindly do something, or will she be seen to be Scrooge, without the last redeeming chapter?

The Prime Minister: No. In 1979, housing benefit cost £1·5 billion. We now spend £5 billion. About 6 million households have housing benefit. [Interruption.] I never know whether Opposition Members will say that the country is so rich that it is spending too much on consumer goods or will complain that no one has any money.

Sir John Stokes: In view of the difficulties that appear to have arisen between the West German Government and British forces in Germany, will my right hon. Friend confirm that our forces are in. Germany to defend our NATO allies, the West, and, of course, Germany? We look to the German Government to behave in a more friendly fashion as an old ally.

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is perfectly correct. Our presence in Germany is to defend the Federal Republic, our allies and ourselves. He is aware that several people were killed in the Remscheid accident. The Federal German Government asked all armed forces stationed in the Federal Republic of Germany not to hold any social events or to play music until after the funerals of those killed in the accident. When the host country asked for that for a short period, it seemed reasonable to try to conform with its wishes. We did so.

Mr. Faulds: The Americans did not.

The Prime Minister: Never mind. We did so. That was right. Instructions to comply with that request until after the memorial service on Thursday 15 December were issued to British forces. We accorded the highest sensitivity to those who suffered as a result of that grievous accident.

Chieftain Tank (Replacement)

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Younger): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the replacement of the Chieftain tank.
Chieftain entered service with the British Army in 1965. Although it continues to give excellent service, it is now rather advanced in years, and technology in this field has moved ahead. It has proved impracticable to organise an international collaborative tank project in an early time scale. Allied collaboration in tanks and their armament remains an important objective for the future; but I have concluded that Chieftain must be replaced as soon as practicable by a tank developed nationally by this country or an ally. I have also decided, subject to satisfactory contractual terms, to upgrade the armament of the Challenger 1 tanks now in service by fitting them with an improved gun, known as CHARM.
My Department has accordingly conducted an assessment of the available tank options. The three main contenders are an improved version of the Leopard 2, manufactured by Kraus Maffei of Germany; an improved version of the Abrams M1, manufactured by General Dynamics of the United States; and the Challenger 2 Mk 2 proposed by Vickers Defence Systems, which is an improved version of Challenger 1. Our assessment was complicated by the fact that the three tanks are not all at the same stage of development.
All three contenders have the potential to meet the Army's requirement. Our assessment took account not only of that factor but of technical merit, risk, time scale, cost, reliability, stretch potential, interoperability with allies, logistic implications and the prospects for overseas sales.
The size of the investment in a new tank makes it essential to conform to sound procurement practice and to minimise risk. After the most careful consideration, therefore, I have decided to give Vickers Defence Systems an opportunity to demonstrate that it is able to deliver Challenger 2 Mk 2 to specification, to time and to cost. Subject to the agreement of satisfactory contract terms, my Department will fund the company to undertake a demonstration phase which will last until the end of September 1990. This will require it to demonstrate within the contracted time that Challenger 2 Mk 2 can meet the staff requirement and can be successfully developed and produced to the required standard so as to achieve the required in-service date, and at a price which the company has already offered us. Precise criteria for performance and technical achievement have been established against which the success of the demonstration phase will be measured. I have set these out today in a written answer to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Conway). An important task for the company will be to demonstrate that an improved ammunition round for the tank's main gun, which we believe will be necessary to match the technical developments of the future, can be successfully developed to the standard and in the time scale required. Intermediate milestones have been established within the demonstration phase at which the company will have to

demonstrate satisfactory progress. This staged approach will enable us to keep our options open for the future, if that proves necessary.
My decision to take the first steps towards replacing Chieftain is an important one for the Army and the NATO Alliance. Over the next 21 months Vickers Defence Systems will have an excellent opportunity to prove its ability to develop a successful tank. 1 commend my decision to the House.

Mr. Martin O'Neill: We welcome the announcement that Vickers Defence Systems will be given the opportunity to demonstrate that Challenger 2 Mk 2 can meet staff requirements. Last week, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) and I visited Leeds, we were confident that those requirements would be met. We all know that this has been a lengthy process and it is vital that a proper decision should be made. Therefore, I should like to ask the Secretary of State to confirm that the suggested procedure is acceptable to Vickers, that it should not be construed outside the House as a grudging or conditional approval of its tank, and that such a procedure would have had to have been adopted, regardless of which tank had been chosen.
Will the Secretary of State further confirm that the fire control system is only one part of the tank's performance and that the much quoted Canadian gunnery competition has always been recognised as a limited test of any tank's capabilities? Would he consider the replacement of the whole fire control system as well as the gun for Challenger I in order to improve its accuracy? Does he accept that we are delighted that our faith in British technology and the work people in the many plants throughout the United Kingdom has been vindicated by this welcome announcement?

Mr. Younger: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his warm welcome and that of his hon. Friends for this decision. I spoke to the managing director of Vickers this morning and I can confirm that this is acceptable to the company. This is in no sense a grudging acceptance. There is no doubt that if the Challenger 2 Mk 2 comes up to all the specifications, which the company is confident it will, it will be an excellent tank.
The work to consider a replacement fire control system for Chieftain started before the Canadian gunnery competition, but when we replace the Challenger 1 guns we shall make all possible improvements.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: Will my right hon. Friend accept the warm support of all of us on this side of the House for his decision which, among other things, maintains the defence capability in this important weapon system, which will enable us to play a continuing role in the next generation of tank production? Will my right hon. Friend also take credit for the fact that his procurement system has now imposed a rigorous competitive discipline on such contracts, not the least benefit of which is that his Department can claim that Britain is the second largest exporter of defence equipment in the world?

Mr. Younger: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend not only for what he has said today, but for the large amount of work that he did to bring about the competitive system, which is undoubtedly doing much good for the British defence industry.


I am grateful, too, for what my right hon. Friend said about the capability of the tank. There is no doubt that this is largely to do with the fact that it has had to be developed so far competitively and that this will continue in the future. As I have said in my statement, those options will remain open to us to ensure that what we get will be up to standard while we have the options open to make the choices.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: Will the Secretary of State accept that his announcement is warmly welcomed by my party, too, especially that part of his proposals which refers to a demonstration phase? Does he agree that what he has effectively done is to put Vickers on probation? It has enjoyed considerable support from both sides of the House in the run-up to the decision, but it must now justify that support by producing a tank on time and up to specification, and one which will meet the demands of the British Army.

Mr. Younger: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for his welcome. I do not think that I would use the phrase "on probation". This is giving Vickers, a company in this country, the opportunity to prove that this tank is as good as it is sure it is. I believe that is fair.

Mr. Edward Heath: While welcoming the decision of my right hon. Friend and the Cabinet most warmly, I ask him to give a categoric assurance that, this decision having been taken, no one in the Ministry of Defence or in the Army will be allowed to interfere with Vickers while it is carrying out this project, either by making proposals for amendments to specifications or by interfering in any other way. We have seen for decades now the consequences of continual amendment. If my right hon. Friend will now strongly say that no one will be allowed to interfere until the end of the marked period, he will do the country a great service.

Mr. Younger: I fully appreciate my right hon. Friend's point. There will be careful specification with Vickers of exactly what it is that it is expected to produce on time—by September 1990. I believe that that meets precisely my right hon. Friend's point.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I commend the decision of the Secretary of State to delay the final decision that we thought would be made a few weeks ago. It has been by far the best way to proceed. However, in the city of Leeds, getting the order matters a great deal. Armoured regiments were raised in the city for the last war, and they fought bravely. They do not want any old tank; they want the best tank that can be produced. How can the work force in Leeds play a part in this demonstration period so that it knows what is lacking and what has to be done? It will not all be done behind closed doors.

Mr. Younger: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his welcome, and I take the point that he has made. What the work force must do—which I am sure it will do with the greatest enthusiasm—is to ensure that the work it carries out during the next 21 months produces exactly the yardsticks and the standards laid down in the contract. If it does that, it will have proved that this is the tank that we should choose. We are keeping our options open so that we have a choice to make at all stages, but it is up to the work force to prove that it can do it.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his commendably judicious decision. Will he tell us a little more about the steps that he proposes to ensure that in the end we get the best tank at the best price? Will he also give an estimate of the total cost?

Mr. Younger: The items which are spelled out in the reply to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (M r. Conway) which I am answering today come under 11 headings. Specific yardsticks have been discussed and it will be agreed with the company what it has to achieve. That appears to be a clear brief for the company and its work force of what is required during the next 21 months. We expect the cost to the Government of this demonstration phase to be about £90 million.

Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: Is the Secretary of State aware that Vickers will respond to this, limited contract and qualify for bulk production? Will he impress on the Vickers management, not the workers at the Leeds plant—as my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) have conveyed, the workers are determined to succeed—that the competition is tight and, consequently, the requirements severe in respect not only of the gun and the general fire control system but of all-round performance, unit costs and availability? The House is unlikely to accept another Nimrod—AWACS disappointment.

Mr. Younger: I very much agree with hon. Gentleman. I think that I also agree that the competitive element will spur everyone to the greatest efforts. We must provide the best tanks we can for the British forces. The choice of ordering this tank in bulk will be made when we are totally convinced that we have the best tank available.

Mr. Michael Jopling: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the decision to place this order with Vickers will be widely welcomed, with one vital proviso? My right hon. Friend must be able to say that, in view of past shortcomings of British tanks, this tank will be the best available weapon for the British Army. That is crucial in this decision.

Mr. Younger: I take my right hon. Friend's point absolutely, but will just correct him. I do not think that he meant to imply that this is an order for the tank. It is an order for the demonstration phase. We intend to carry the demonstration phase through until it is demonstrated that this is the tank which is up to the specifications. Until that point, we retain the option of choosing the best tank. That is the best guarantee that the product that we get will be the best.

Mr. John Cartwright: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's announcement. Will he confirm that Challenger 2 potentially has a number of important advantages over its United States rival? Will he confirm, for example, that it will have better armour, will be more manoeuvrable in combat, will have lower fuel consumption and will be cheaper to operate and maintain? Are those not important considerations which will lead him to buy British?

Mr. Younger: They are important considerations, but I should say that we are not dealing with three tanks one of


which is outstandingly better than the others. They are all good tanks. They all have good points and less good points. I have had to make a delicate judgment on where the balance lies. My decision is that, if Challenger 2 Mk 2 can be brought fully up to the standard to which it is reputed it can be brought, it will be a very good tank.

Mr. Jerry Wiggin: What estimates has my right hon. Friend's Department made of the total cost of the order were it eventually to go for this tank? I welcome the modern version of a last world war weapon, but when will my right hon. Friend tell the House that he will buy a next world war weapon, a helicopter?

Mr. Younger: The cost of a full order would very much depend on its size and scale and whether the goods were ordered in one or two tranches. If a full order were placed to replace all the Chieftains on a one-for-one basis, it would come to well over £1 billion worth of tanks.
Many studies have been made into the relative merits of tanks and helicopters to fulfil their slightly differing roles on the battlefield. It is clear that both have a role. We require a balance of both types of equipment.

Mr. David Clelland: Is the Secretary of State aware that this news will be welcome to my constituents in Tyne Bridge, especially the work force at the Vickers factory on the Scotswood road in Newcastle? The decision comes after considerable lobbying by the work force and the company and by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House. Why does a company with a century of experience and a work force with considerable skills—built up without the aid of city technology colleges and the like—have to prove itself to a Government who have so much egg on their face?

Mr. Younger: I welcome the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, but the last half was not truly worthy of the occasion. As I understand it, the management and the work force at Vickers Defence Systems are convinced that they have a first class tank to offer. It is for that reason, and not because of any lobbying, that I have chosen to give them the chance to prove it.

Mr. Derek Conway: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the excellent engine that I hope will power this model uses half the fuel of the American option and is made by the work force at Perkins Engines in Shrewsbury? Therefore, my right hon. Friend's statement today is logistically welcome. Have not the extra Challenger regiment and the new main battle tanks only been made possible as a result of the Government's management of the economy and my right hon. Friend's stewardship of the Ministry of Defence? If this afternoon's statement were being made by a Labour defence spokesman, the workers in Newcastle, Leeds and elsewhere, including in Shrewsbury in my constituency, would not be seeing this main battle tank because under the Labour party's chaos economy and cuts in defence policy it would never be able to afford it.

Mr. Younger: I agree strongly with my hon. Friend and I am glad to be reminded again of his interest in the engines, which I am sure will be produced well. My hon. Friend is perfectly correct. We are now spending from the

defence budget about £19 billion more in real terms on conventional weapons than the Labour party was when it was in government. In no way could an expenditure of this sort have been fitted into the sort of defence budget that the Opposition have been talking about.

Mr. Stan Crowther: Will the funding and specifications to which the Secretary of State referred make any provision for the new tank to be built with British steel rather than with steel from a foreign company which may well be subject to well-concealed subsidies? In other words, will he and the Vickers management bear in mind that accepting the lowest tender, which could easily be illegally subsidised, will not necessarily be in the British national interest?

Mr. Younger: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but which steel supplier to use is very much a matter for Vickers.

Dr. Keith Hampson: That this is a sensible decision will be recognised by people in Leeds and, I am sure, by all Conservative Members who know the substantial investment put by Vickers, since it bought the Royal Ordnance factory, behind the Challenger tank. We are delighted that my right hon. Friend has faith in Vickers' management and work force and in their ability to demonstrate that they can produce the best for the British Army. However, in the light of the tank's enormous export potential, will he dispel the innuendo deriving from The Daily Telegraph yesterday that the Ministry of Defence, and the Army in particular, are not completely behind the decision?

Mr. Younger: I thank my hon. Friend very much for what he has said. I agree that Vickers' investment in its two tank factories is a remarkable demonstration of confidence in its ability to produce something and sell it, and we are now giving it a further opportunity to demonstrate that. I can dispel the story that has been mentioned. The entire Ministry of Defence will be extremely pleased at the progress made on the tank issue and is completely united behind it.

Mr. Derek Fatchett: Vickers' work force and management in Leeds will be working flat out to ensure that they meet the targets that have been set by the Ministry of Defence, and I have absolute confidence that they will do that. But the work force and, I suspect, the management have one fear, which goes back to the point made by the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson), and that is about the Ministry of Defence's motivation. I heard what the Secretary of State has just said, but will he confirm that in Cabinet discussions he has not put forward any recommendations in favour of the Challenger 2 tank?

Mr. Younger: No, I could not reveal any aspect of any kind about the internal goings-on of Cabinet discussions. That would be quite improper and unusual. However, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Ministry of Defence will be completely behind the decision and will ensure that it is successful.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for all that he said about the work force. Like those well used to competition, it will appreciate that it has been given a clear series of targets which it will have to hit full and proper if we are to proceed with the remaining stages of ordering the tanks.

Mr. Graham Riddick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this opportunity for British industry to prove itself is the best possible Christmas present for those who work at David Brown Gears in my constituency and who, we hope, will produce the gear box for Challenger 2? They and, no doubt, those employed at Vickers will be happy to prove that they can build the best tank in the world, and I am sure that they would wish to thank my right hon. Friend for putting his confidence in British industry.

Mr. Younger: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right and that all concerned will do their best to meet the yardsticks drawn up in agreement with the company. It is our right to set such yardsticks and to give the company the opportunity. We are sure that it will meet the targets; if it does, we shall be able to proceed.

Mr. John McWilliam: Does the Secretary of State accept that many of my constituents who work at Vickers in Scotswood, together with many more in the ammunition division in Birtley, will welcome today's announcement? Does he also accept the disquiet felt by some of us about the extremely odd procurement process that has been involved, and in particular about the serious misinformation campaign carried out by various people against the Vickers tank?

Mr. Younger: I agree that some peculiar information has been put about from I do not know where for some months past. I assure the hon. Gentleman that none of it has emanated from my Ministry, which has proceeded along a very careful path. We want to ensure, first, that we obtain the best possible tank for the Army and, secondly, that in obtaining it we also obtain the best possible value for money. I believe that we should proceed stage by stage. Everyone is being given a challenge: if they produce the goods we shall buy them, and if they do not we shall have to look elsewhere.

Sir Antony Buck: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree that it is gratifying to find such approbation for his decision on both sides of the House. Will he confirm, first, that the Army will get the best available tank in the shortest possible time, and, secondly, that he will concentrate a little more on the likely export potential?

Mr. Younger: Provided that Vickers and its work force reach the targets in time and that all our other yardsticks such as costs are met, we shall obtain the best possible tank for the British Army. But if that were regrettably not to happen, we should have the option to go elsewhere if necessary. It is of course desirable to get on with the project within the time scale that has been laid down, and that will be very much part of the competition.
As for exports, I have already assured the company that my Ministry will give it the maximum support wherever we can in the world so that the tank and all its derivatives can he sold in a way that is suitable for each country.

Mr. Dick Douglas: Will the Secretary of State tell us more about the nature of the funding? We are told that the Government are putting in £90 million. How much is the company doing to match that within the time scale?
Secondly, how many prototypes will be built? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could also tell us something

about the purchasing of long-lead items. If we are to have a main battle tank of this calibre by the mid-1990s, these are important considerations. I hope that I shall receive a frank reply.

Mr. Younger: Yes, they are important considerations. It is fair to say that Vickers has already spent quite a bit of its own money on developing the tank, but the stage that I have announced today will be entirely funded by the Government, who will spend approximately £90 million. The company has already put in some money, and it will be following that up with a good many other commitments.
The hon. Gentleman asked about prototypes. It is a question less of prototype tanks than of various types of demonstration that would be necessary, some on the work bench rather than on the tanks.
Finally, as far as long-lead items are concerned, we shall still have time to make our final decision in the light of this demonstration phase on or after September 1990, and still have time for the long-lead items to be ordered in time for delivery at the in-service date.

Sir Ian Lloyd: My right hon. Friend said that this stage will be funded by the Government. He will know better than most that nothing is more difficult to predict than the cost of high technology prototypes of almost any sort of weaponry. What will happen if, at the end of this stage, Vickers says it has spent the £90 million but that it does not have a tank? Will he return to the House for further funds?

Mr. Younger: I should have to come back to the House with a further statement if that happened. My hon. Friend has drawn attention to a most important feature. In line with the best procurement practice, we have secured a fixed price from the company for this demonstration phase. It is understood by everyone, not least the company, that if it could not complete this phase to standard or on time we should have the option of going elsewhere if we needed to.

Mr. John Browne: In order to procure the best tank to match the best tank crews, is my right hon. Friend prepared to look at the negotiation of international licensing agreements to ensure that the best international technology will be available for this tank?

Mr. Younger: Various sophisticated parts of technology go into the tank, some of them international. Vickers already has numerous international contacts of the type that my hon. Friend suggests.

Sir Giles Shaw: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, in addition to this welcome announcement, he has given a vote of confidence to the privatisation of the Royal Ordnance factories? Vickers can put much investment into this project—successfully, I hope—and it can raise funds should there be difficulties en route.
Will the final decision be taken in 1990, or will there be an appraisal earlier than that to allow this long-term uncertainty to be removed from the company, whose work force are highly skilled—they number many of my constituents among them—and whose management wishes to prove itself effective?

Mr. Younger: My hon. Friend is right in intimating that this shows that Royal Ordnance, which is an important part of producing this tank, is an effective and


well-managed company under its new private enterprise management. That gives the lie to some of the most extreme statements made at the time of its privatisation. It is clearly healthy and in good order.
As for the time scale, I do not think it likely that these milestones will all be passed before September 1990, although the company is confident of doing so well within that time. Twenty-one months is not a long time to demonstrate all this about an important high technology tank.

Sir Peter Hordern: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, unlike the Sting Ray torpedo and AWACS, this is not a blueprint for a new system, but a development of existing technology which Vickers is perfectly capable of producing? Will he confirm, therefore, that he has every confidence in Vickers being able to match this demanding schedule?

Mr. Younger: My hon. Friend is right about that. This is not the same type of technical challenge as the other cases that he instanced. On the other hand, there is quite a lot of high technology in a modern tank. It is important that Vickers has the experience, and that the type of contract we are proposing to lay on the company gives it a strong incentive to deliver on time, to cost and to standard. That is written into the contract and it is our safeguard against this being another example of some unhappy experiences.

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement, which will be welcomed by my constituents living in Lymington and Ringwood who work for Wellworthy, which is a major supplier to the tank fleet. I hope that it will be able to continue to be so in future.
In view of the rather unhappy background and the knocking of the British tank in the press and elsewhere, will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Abrams tank has proved itself far from trouble-free, and that when it was used by the Pakistan armed forces its turret was prone to splitting due to bad workmanship?

Mr. Younger: I appreciate my hon. Friend's point. I have seen reports of the performances of various of the tanks that have been in this competition. I would not want to select one instance reported in the paper as being typical. I have no doubt that all three tanks I mentioned in my statement are first class. It is a question of trying to get the best one for the British Army.

Mr. Edward Leigh: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the two early-day motions tabled by Conservative Members, which each attracted more than 100 signatures, specifically avoided the sort of jingoistic sentiment we have heard from some Opposition quarters in the past few weeks. They paid tribute to the relative merits of the Vickers' tank as against those if its potential competitors.
In view of the substantial potential export orders, whose value could amount to up to £12 billion, will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to state categorically that this decision was based not on political grounds but on the merits of the tank, and particularly on

the fact that Vickers has a proven hull in the shape of the Challenger 1 hull, and a proven fire control system bought in from outside?

Mr. Younger: I, too, have watched with interest the war of the early-day motions on this subject. I am sure that they will be helpful in focusing people's attention on it.
I can certainly confirm what my hon. Friend has said. In a matter of this sort we must be quite clear that our objective of buying the best tank for the British Army depends on assessing the merits of the various tanks presented to us. It is on the basis of that that we have decided to give Vickers the chance to develop the Challenger Mk 2 further.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: In permitting Vickers to demonstrate that it can produce the best tank for the British Army, my right hon. Friend has made the right decision for the right reasons. Will he confirm that the Challenger 2 Mk 2 is likely to have lower through-life costs and lower support costs and will be better protected than the Abrams tank; that it will have greater compatibility and interoperability with existing British weapons systems; and that it is likely to have considerable export potential if we decide to go ahead with production?

Mr. Younger: Those are certainly some of the merits that we carefully took into account when making this decision. It is fair to make the general point that there is not much to choose between the three tanks as regards final through-life costs. We made the balance of the decision on technical merit and other grounds.

Mr. Neville Trotter: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there will be pleasure in the north of the country, particularly on Tyneside and in Yorkshire, at his decision? Does he accept that the funding of a British tank for the future is essential and that it would be a great mistake if this country were ever to cease producing its own main battle tank? Will he give maximum support to Vickers' export orders, bearing in mind that the maintenance of a tank-building capacity in this country requires us continually to export tanks to other parts of the world?

Mr. Younger: Yes, we shall certainly give the fullest support to Vickers in seeking export markets for the various derivatives of the Challenger which will now be on offer. I would not go quite as far as my hon. Friend and guarantee that for all time it is essential that we always make all our own tanks. I hope that that will be so, and while we have a good tank industry let us give it the chance to prove what it can do.

Mr. Robert Banks: I am thoroughly pleased with his decision, but will my right hon. Friend confirm that his officials will monitor the development of the final stage of the Challenger 2? Can the cost be offset by a commission from sales of tanks to countries overseas when a tank has been proved successful?

Mr. Younger: The monitoring process will be close and specific. The company will have to achieve specific milestones. Together with the company we shall watch progress carefully.
It will be very much up to the company to take the lead in exporting, and it will have the fullest support from the defence exports services organisation.

Mr. Tony Marlow: As by the time the main order—if it comes—is due for execution many people believe that the tank will be shown to have the antediluvian tactical significance of a brontosaurus confronted with a Smart missile, will my right hon. Friend hasten slowly so that when we come to spend the real money, it is spent on a modern defence system rather than on fighting—as we always do—the last war yet again?

Mr. Younger: When the tank is developed, it will certainly he a far more formidable machine than any seen in the last war. As I have said already, we appreciate that there are various merits for tanks and other forms of equipment, such as helicopters, but we cannot envisage a situation in which either of them will be unnecessary.

Mr. Julian Brazier: My right hon. Friend is to be congratulated on insisting on examining carefully what we are buying under the £90 million contract before placing the main contract. Can he assure us that part of that assessment will include user trials by some of the troops who will use the equipment eventually so that we can be certain that this is the best tank and does not merely fulfil the paper criteria?

Mr. Younger: Representatives of the Army and those who will use the tank will be involved closely in that process. I doubt whether the tank will be developed sufficiently during this phase for troops in front line units to try it out, but the Army will be closely involved in the process.

Mr. Ian Bruce: My right hon. Friend will know that his decision will be welcomed by many in the Royal Armoured Corps based at Bovington and Lulworth in my constituency. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the Challenger's fire control system is designed to hit moving targets, whereas the Abrams tank is good at hitting static targets? The tactics of the Russians would be to move while we were firing at them. We already have the best tank and today's decision will ensure that the Mk 2 is even better.

Mr. Younger: I confirm that I have been made aware that the Royal Armoured Corps will be extremely pleased by the promise of a new tank to replace the Chieftain. On the fire control system, I make no comment on the capability of the Abrams tank, but if the Challenger Mk 2 comes up to the specification that the company has given, it will be effective.

Mr. Allan Rogers: In view of the history of moving the goalposts in the development stages of new weapons, particularly with Foxhunter radar, which has led to the present calamities, will the Secretary of State confirm that staff requirements for the Challenger 2 will not be changed during the development stage?

Mr. Younger: Yes, staff requirements, which the company is striving to meet, are clearly understood and they are fixed. However, the yardsticks in the demonstration phase, which the company is now being given the opportunity to meet, are also clear and specific and have been agreed with the company. It will have to meet those yardsticks if it is to obtain the final order. We shall keep our options open until then.

NEW MEMBER

The following Member took and subscribed the Oath:

Steven John Norris Esq., for Epping Forest.

Royal Assent

Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

1. Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Act 1988.
2. City of Glasgow District Council Order Confirmation Act 1988.
3. Newcastle upon Tyne Town Moor Act 1988.
4. Birmingham City Council Act 1988.
5. Southern Water Authority Act 1988.
6. Harwich Harbour Act 1988.

Points of Order

Mr. Donald Dewar: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask for your guidance on certain contentious matters concerning the future of the Scottish Affairs Committee and the impact of the Government's motion which is to be debated later tonight. I have no wish to tackle the merits of the proposal. The Opposition, as you know, Mr. Speaker, believe it to be a shabby and unsatisfactory affair, but what disconcerts and concerns me is that the motion in the name of the Leader of the House seems to be drafted badly and is unspecific in its intent. It notes:
the inability of the Committee of Selection to nominate Members to serve",
but draws no apparent conclusion from that. The rest of the motion dealing with the supposed role of the Committee of Public Accounts and other Select Committees is mere decoration. The kernel of the motion is:
That this House recognises the inability of the Committee of Selection to nominate Members to serve on the Scottish Affairs Committee in accordance with Standing Order No. 104(2);".
I am entitled to say, seriously, so what? The motion lacks specificity and seems to be ambiguous. I genuinely do not know what the effect would be if it were to be passed and I ask for your help in defining the impact of the motion on the machinery of the House, if it were to be passed.
As you will be aware, Mr. Speaker, it must be seen against the background of the terms of Standing Order No. 130, which deals with the setting up of Select Committees on departmental business and states that those Committees shall be appointed, and Standing Order No. 130(2), which lists the Scottish Affairs Committee as one that is to be set up. It says that such a Committee should have a membership of 13 and a quorum of five. As I understand it, the motion in the name of the Leader of the House does not seek to alter that. It appears, therefore, that the Committee will continue to exist in a state of limbo or suspended animation. Can the Committee be brought to life at any time? If so, what is the machinery for doing that? Standing Order No. 130 has a mandatory tone, stating that Committees "shall be appointed". That must be balanced against the executive role given to the Committee of Selection in Standing Order No. 104(2). Is the Committee of Selection affected by the passing of the motion and is it to take the instructions of the House from it, because it is not specific? Is it to cease its efforts to form such a Committee, given the terms of Standing Order No. 130? What message is there for the Committee if the motion is passed? I believe that there is no specific message.
I shall draw a parallel with an example from another discipline. If, as a solicitor, I presented this motion in my local sheriff court, the bench would give me a rough passage and would want to know what I was inviting it to do and what the motion meant. The House is in genuine difficulty. Therefore, can you, Mr. Speaker, answer my questions and clarify the situation?

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Allow me to deal with the matter. I thank the hon. Gentleman for having given notice of the matter, because I have been able to look into it in some

detail. The motion on the Order Paper is in order, but I can confirm that if it is passed later tonight it will not prevent the Committee of Selection from coming forward with names for the Scottish Affairs Committee if it subsequently found itself able to do so.

Mr. Dewar: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would it be fair to make the interpretation that there is no instruction that it is not to continue its search for that membership?

Mr. Allan Stewart: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Rumours are spreading through the building that my Member of Parliament—the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars)—is planning his much heralded demonstration some time today or tomorrow with the aim of getting himself named. There is, of course, to be a debate tonight. Can you, Mr. Speaker, give some idea of when the demonstration may take place so that my hon. Friends can be here not only to witness it but, if necessary, to vote overwhelmingly in your support and speed the hon. Gentleman back to Glasgow where he can finish his Christmas shopping?

Mr. Speaker: All sorts of rumours circulate at this time of year. I know nothing about such matters.

Mr. Jim Sillars: Further to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that you should rule the motion standing in the name of the Leader of the House incompetent, insofar as it is irregular under the rule of anticipation. Bearing in mind your statement that the Select Committee still has the ability to tackle the matter, I put it to you seriously that the motion falls within that rule. As you are aware, you have considerable powers in this respect. "Erskine May" states on page 380:
Stated generally, the rule against anticipation … is that a matter must not be anticipated if it is contained in a more effective form of proceeding than the proceeding by which it is sought to be anticipated.
In effect, that means that you, Mr. Speaker, must apply a test: what is the most effective form of procedure on the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs? You must ask whether it is this motion or Standing Order No. 130. Standing Order No. 130 is a rule of the House; the motion is not. Standing Order No. 130 is clear and precise, and it is mandatory rather than discretionary.
May I also draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to page 381 of "Erskine May" which states:
A matter already appointed for consideration by the House cannot be anticipated by a motion".
Standing Order No. 130, combined with Standing Order No. 104(2), says that there must be a nomination from the Select Committee. The Select Committee has made no report to us since 13 January, and on 13 January the Chairman of the Select Committee asked for the advice and instruction of the House. That has not yet appeared, but obviously we can now expect a further report.
"Erskine May" also says:
in determining whether a discussion would be out of order on the ground of anticipation, the Speaker must have regard to the probability of the matter anticipated being brought before the House within a reasonable time
under Standing Order No. 26.
There is a distinct probability of the matter being brought before the House under Standing Order No. 26 in


relation to your ruling. On those grounds, you should rule the motion irregular and incompetent and strike it off the Order Paper.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, you expect hon. Members on both sides of the House—this will disappoint the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), the lad who asked you about a demonstration—to respect and obey the rules of the House. How do you, and others responsible for the Order Paper and the Standing Orders, expect us to respect the rules when they are manipulated and when the Government cheat in this fashion?

Mr. Speaker: I have looked carefully at this matter, as I expected the hon. Gentleman would raise a point of order on it. The motion on the Order Paper is in order; I am satisfied of that. The hon. Gentleman asked about the rule of anticipation. The rule against anticipation is applied only if an alternative proposal is likely to be anticipated. We are not expecting a motion from the Committee of Selection at present.
I realise that there are strongly held views about the contents of the motion, but such opinions should be expressed in the debate that is to follow rather than in points of order addressed to me. It may assist the House if I announce now that I have made full use of the motion on the business of the House which was passed last Friday and have selected all three amendments for Division at the end of the debate. That will give hon. Members an opportunity to register the distinctive point of view that the amendments represent. That is the end of my role in this matter. We cannot pursue it in points of order, at the expense of an important social security debate.

Mr. George Foulkes: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. What would happen if the Opposition failed to nominate any Members to a Select Committee through the usual channels? How would the House deal with that?

Mr. Speaker: That is a matter for the Chairman of the Select Committee.

Mr. Bill Walker: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance and assistance as a Back Bencher who will be greatly affected by the motion. Can you, Sir, confirm that there is no way that a Back Bench Member can be ordered or instructed to attend a Select Committee? Can you also confirm that if any Select Committee does not perform its role adequately it does a disservice to the objectives laid down for the Select Committees when they were first set up?

Mr. Speaker: The House could order an hon. Member to attend a Select Committee.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: Further to the points of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars), Mr. Speaker. If the House passes the motion in the name of the Leader of the House, we shall in effect be giving official recognition to a breach of Standing Order No. 130. My question is simple: how can this House, or any sane assembly, give official recognition to a breach of its own Standing Orders without first suspending or amending those Standing Orders?

Mr. Speaker: That is the matter raised by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), and I have already ruled on it.

Mr. Alex Salmond: Further to the. point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to pursue the matter about anticipation. How can we be sure that the Chairman of the Committee of Selection is not about to come before the House, further to his report of last January, and make an announcement on this matter? Does not the matter therefore fall within the rule of anticipation?

Mr. Speaker: It is not known at present that any such announcement is expected.

Mr. James Wallace: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. On the point raised by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), you said that you did not anticipate any announcement coming from the Committee of Selection. As the meetings of the Committee of Selection are held in private, and as no report has been published by the Committee in recent weeks on this subject, I would ask you, Sir, how you have knowledge of something which I should not have thought was immediately within your knowledge.

Mr. Speaker: I have no knowledge that that is likely to happen.

Mr. Graham Allen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be aware that yesterday certain allegations were made by the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo). I brought those allegations, which were inaccurate and untrue, to your attention last night. Through your good offices and those of the usual channels, I received an apology from the hon. Gentleman which said:
You make it quite clear in the record that you were not seeking a higher personal salary, and for that implication that my remarks may have carried I do apologise.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his letter and consider the matter closed.

Mr. Martin Brandon-Bravo: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Having checked Hansard early this morning, may I say that I had intended to make a full statement of apology in the House but, having received advice on the best practice, I wrote to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) and I felt that the matter would rest there.
However, having begun to read my letter publicly on the Floor of the House, the hon. Gentleman has done himself and the House less than a service in reading only the first paragraph of my letter. I made it clear to him that I apologised for the fact that it could have been interpreted from my remarks yesterday that he was seeking a higher salary. I went on to say that I utterly deplored the practice of Labour Members in seeking greater facilities. If the hon. Gentleman wants to read only half the letter, I have no reason to apologise for the view that I expressed yesterday that we have adequate resources for our secretarial allowance, and it is disgraceful that the matter should have been raised in this way.

Mr. Speaker: It will soon be Christmas. An apology has been made. May we leave the matter there?

Mr. Peter Rost: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Last Thursday, the hon. Members for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) and for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), through points of order to you, made


some personal allegations against me in my absence based upon and quoting from The Guardian of last Thursday. The article is inaccurate and legal action is in hand.
My interests in and contribution to energy efficiency for the last 18 years are well known inside and outside the House. Where those involve commercial interests, they are declared. I deeply resent the accusation that in pursuing such interests I am motivated by personal gain, I have brought the House into disrepute or that I have or seek commercial interests that may abuse my position as a Member of Parliament. I deeply resent and deny the accusation that I have pursued or would seek to pursue any interests that might work against the United Kingdom economy or industry. The contrary is the truth.
I seek your protection, Mr. Speaker, and ask you to invite the hon. Members for Cunninghame, North and for Sunderland, South to withdraw their damaging and inaccurate allegations made behind the cloak of parliamentary privilege.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has made his personal position absolutely clear.

Mr. Harry Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise for delaying the House by mentioning yet again the motion in the name of the Leader of the House. When my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) said that if the motion was passed it would breach one of the Standing Orders of the House, the Leader of the House nodded his head in agreement. Is it in order for the Government to table a motion which, if passed, would breach a Standing Order of the House? If it is in order, does it mean that any Opposition party could table a motion which, if passed by the House, would breach its Standing Orders? It is a serious matter.

Mr. Speaker: The motion does not breach the Standing Orders of the House. It recognises a difficulty, but, as I told the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), even if it were passed, it would not prevent the Committee of Selection from coming forward with names for a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs.

Mr. Sillars: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: No. I have dealt with the point of order.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If you were to look at item No. 39 on page 735 of the Order Paper, you would see that the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) has consistently called for more facilities to be made available to Members of Parliament. This would cost a considerable amount—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a continuation of an argument that arose yesterday. It is not appropriate to carry it on today.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Ordered,
That the Bristol Development Corporation (Area and Constitution) Order 1988 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments &amp;c.
That the Bristol Development Corporation (Area and Constitution) (Amendment) Order 1988 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments &amp;c.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]

Mr. Andrew Welsh: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a very important debate today on two social security orders that must end at 7 o'clock. I cannot say more than I have already said on the motion in the name of the Leader of the House, but I shall hear the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Welsh: You said, Mr. Speaker, that the motion is not a breach of the Standing Order, but it is, in the sense that it is a failure to implement it. Who is the guardian of Standing Orders in the House? How can the motion be implemented? The rights of minority parties in a democracy are a basic matter affecting the entire House.

Mr. Speaker: The House as a whole is the guardian of the Standing Orders. I have already said that the motion does not breach the Standing Orders, but it leaves the matter open. The hon. Gentleman can speak to the amendment on the Order Paper in the names of his hon. Friends, and the matter will be decided by the House.

Social Security

The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Nicholas Scott): I beg to move,
That the draft Social Security (Contributions and Allocation of Contributions) (Re-rating) Order 1988, which was laid before this House on 7th December, be approved.
I understand that it would be for the convenience of the House if we also debated the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 1988.
The first order deals with the re-rating of national insurance contributions and lifts them upwards in accordance with practice. The second order uprates social security benefits and both apply to 1989–90.
At the outset, may I make a point that is familiar but nevertheless bears repeating? The massive increase in expenditure on social security benefits for the coming year is about £3·4 billion. It is possible for the nation and the Government to afford such a massive increase only because we have a successful economic policy which brings considerable benefits to our people and provides the resources for the upratings. We are trying to strike a balance between the interests of those in receipt of benefits and the working population who must pay to provide those benefits.
In the coming year we plan to spend nearly £27·5 billion on contributory benefits. As the House is aware, the key to the contributory principle is that entitlement to these benefits is earned by the payment of national insurance contributions. The Government's proposals for national insurance contributions were announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 1 November. We do not propose to change the rates of class 1 contributions in the coming year; 1989–90 will be the sixth year in succession when we have not increased the main class 1 rates. The lower earnings limit for class 1 contributions which is linked by statute to the basic retirement pension rate, rounded down to the nearest pound, will be £43 a week from next April. The upper earnings limit will be fixed at £325 a week, nearly seven and a half times the basic pension level. The regulations which bring the new earnings limits into effect will be made and laid as soon as the benefits uprating order has been approved by Parliament.
The re-rating proposals are contained in the draft Social Security (Contributions and Allocation of Contributions) (Re-rating) Order 1988. The House will recall that in 1985 we reduced the contribution rates paid by lower-paid workers and their employers to help those workers and to reduce employment costs. The reduced contribution rates cut significantly the impact of contributions on people on lower earnings, but they did not affect their benefit entitlement in any way. We now propose to increase each of the earnings limits below which the lower contribution rates are payable in line with inflation, rounded to the nearest £5.
The proposals will further ease the burden on some lower-paid workers and their employers, and I am sure that the House will welcome that. Most other employees will not pay any more in contributions, unless their earnings rise. People earning at or above the new upper earnings limit of £325 a week will pay £1·80 extra a week, or £1·44 if they are in contracted-out employment. In

1989–90, class 1 contributions are expected to yield about £31 billion which will be apportioned between the national insurance fund and the National Health Service.
The House is aware that self-employed people pay their national insurance contributions in two parts—the flat rate class 2 contribution and the profits-related class 4 contribution. We do not propose any change to the class 4 rate, which will remain at 6·3 per cent. in the coming year. The profits limits for class 4 contributions, which determine the level of profits on which contributions are payable, will be increased, broadly in line with the earnings limits for class 1 contributions, to £5,050 and £16,900 respectively. The upper profits limit is exactly 52 times the class 1 upper earnings limit. We also propose to increase the class 2 contribution by 20p to £4·25 a week from next April. The class 2 rate is linked to the class 1 lower earnings limit and its increase reflects the proposed rise in that limit.
Self-employed people with profits at or above the proposed upper profits limit of £16,900 will pay about £57 more in the coming year. Self-employed people are expected to contribute about £955 million in contributions in 1989–90.
The draft order also increases the amount of class 1 contributions allocated to meeting the costs of the National Health Service. From April 1989 we propose to increase employees' NHS allocation to 1·05 per cent. and the employers' allocation to 0·9 per cent. in respect of earnings on which class I contributions are paid. The allocation will raise over £4 billion for the NHS in the coming year.
The report by the Government Actuary on the effects of our proposals on the national insurance fund has been laid with the re-rating orders. It is estimated that the total income received by the national insurance fund will be slightly more than £29 billion in 1989–90 and total expenditure, including administration, is estimated to be slightly more than £28·5 billion. The surplus anticipated for the coming year will be £500 million, which is much lower than was originally expected for the current year. However, that surplus must be kept in perspective. It is equivalent to just one week's benefit expenditure paid from the fund in the coming year.
I shall now turn to what I believe the House will find the more interesting of the two orders.

Mr. Tim Smith: Before my hon. Friend moves on, will he comment on two matters that were raised by the Institute for Fiscal Studies and discuss them with the Treasury? The first point relates to the lower-earnings-limit trap. Someone on £43 a week who takes an extra £1 in pay will be worse off.
The second point relates to the upper earnings limit above which 34 per cent. deductions become 25 per cent. deductions. Will the Department examine those two problems and discuss with the Treasury ways of sorting them out?

Mr. Scott: There are no plans to change that. I understand the desirability of smoothing out those matters and the Government are aware of that. There are no plans to alter the present pattern of national insurance contributions and their rates.

Mr. Frank Field: Will the Minister follow the advice of his hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) and formulate plans for changing national insurance contributions? Is the Minister aware that in this


country we have 40 per cent. of all part-time work in Europe? The reason for that is that we have built into our system an enormous bias against people creating full-time jobs. If they do, both employers and employees have to pay contributions. Therefore, I add to the plea made by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield and ask the Minister to examine not only the effect on marginal tax rates of moving into and out of national insurance, but whether employers' contributions should begin at the first pound of earnings.

Mr. Scott: The hon. Gentleman is knowledgeable on this matter. If there were a flat rate of national insurance contributions across the board, we would not face that problem. The problem arises because we are introducing lower rates for national insurance contributions, which, in turn, introduces steps. I can see the desirability of smoothing out all this, but that would require substantial thought. We have such considerations in mind, but there are no present plans to deal with the problem. I accept the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) that such matters might be discussed in Government.
The second order uprates the benefits, and I understand that some Opposition Members intend to vote against it. I shall deal with three matters relating to the uprating order. The first involves pensions. On the radio, the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), if I heard him correctly, accused the Government of neglecting Britain's pensioners. If the Government's record amounts to neglect, heaven knows what description would be adequate for what happened to pensioners under the previous Labour Government. I wholly reject the hon. Gentleman's allegation and shall seek to prove that it is the last accusation that could be legitimately levelled against the Government.
The Labour party tends to be obsessed only with the level of the basic state pension. Any pensioner in Britain will say that the issue is much wider than that. We have honoured our pledge to protect pensioners against inflation rather than follow the path of the previous Labour Government who made grand promises and then had cruelly to dash hopes when they were unable to fulfil their pledges.

Mr. Frank Field: Before the Minister leaves the previous Labour Government's record, would he care to remind the House that that Government, despite their faults, increased the national insurance pension by 20 per cent. in real terms? Will the Government match that record?

Mr. Scott: I freely acknowledge that that is a fact. I am trying to persuade hon. Members—

Mr. Field: It is true.

Mr. Scott: I have acknowledged that it is true. If the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) listens, he will learn. That is a fat lot of good to pensioners if their savings are destroyed and the opportunity to obtain other income is diminished. Pensioners are interested in what happens to their total incomes—the money they can spend on the goods and services they need. That is more important to

them than the basic state pension. Our case on that broader issue is unassailable when compared with Labour's record.
Under the previous Labour Government total pensioner incomes reduced from 55 per cent. of average manual earnings to 53 per cent. by the time the Labour party left office. Between 1979 and 1986 we restored total pensioner incomes to the level at which they stood when the Labour party took office and they now represent 60 per cent. of annual manual earnings in Britain.
We have done more than that. Our period in Government has been characterised by a steady growth in pensioner living standards. We have tackled inflation in a way that escaped the ability of Labour Members when they held office. By tackling inflation we have made it possible for pensioners' savings to contribute significantly to their living standards.
Pensioner incomes reduced by an average of 3·4 per cent. per year during the years in which the Labour party held office. Since we have been in office, pensioner incomes have increased by 7 per cent. in real terms in each year to an overall total of 64 per cent. over the first seven years. That is important to British pensioners. We have also increased the basic state pension.
We have encouraged and are encouraging still further the spread of occupational pension funds and personal pensions. The result of our policies is that, over our first seven years in office, pensioner incomes rose twice as fast as the incomes of the population as a whole. They increased by 23 per cent., compared with 3 per cent. when Labour was in office. In other words, we have increased pensioners' standard of living by a factor five times as great as that which the Labour party achieved.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: That cannot be denied. However, how much of that figure was accounted for by SERPS coming on stream? The Minister must acknowledge that that was introduced by the Labour Government in 1978 and was bound to come to fruition in the early 1980s.

Mr. Scott: I cannot give the House a breakdown of the figures. However, inflation is important and I have given the House the figures about the impact of inflation on pensioner incomes and savings. The greater spread of occupational pensions and the steps we are taking to encourage that are also important. I freely acknowledge that the introduction of SERPS was a step in the right direction.
However, the Labour party introduced a scheme for SERPS which would have been unaffordable in the middle of the next century and which would have been a burden that most taxpayers could not afford. We have modified SERPS and made it more affordable. Therefore, we are not following the path of the previous Labour Government and raising pensioners' hopes with grand promises, only to dash them because of mismanagement of the economy.

Sir Anthony Meyer: My hon. Friend is quite right when he says that pensioners' incomes have increased, but there is a danger of misleading the House. On average, the incomes of most pensioners have increased substantially. However, the other side of the coin is that the incomes of a large number of pensioners have decreased. That fact tends to get hidden in the talk about averages.

Mr. Scott: My hon. Friend has anticipated what I was about to say. It was precisely because we were conscious of the fact that not all pensioners had shared evenly in the improvement in pensioners' incomes that my right hon. Friend made his announcement that from next October additional help will be made available to them in the form of a new and extended structure of pensioner premiums under the income support scheme. [Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Member for Livingston does not like to be reminded that this Government have tackled the long-standing problem of the poorer pensioners. I do not intend to go over the ground that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State covered so comprehensively in his statement. However, we have taken steps to tackle the problem and we have provided additional resources for that purpose. It will cost nearly £200 million in a full year.
The Government's record on pensions is unassailable, but successive upratings by this Government have also ensured that the benefits paid to people who suffer from long-term illnesses and disability have more than kept their value. Many disabled people have received a real terms increase in the amount of benefit that they receive. Those in receipt of the mobility allowance have had a 9 per cent. increase in real terms since July 1978. An estimated 190,000 people under pensionable age receive more from the disability premium, together with income support, than they would have received in supplementary benefit alone.
Our record of a sustained and enhanced value of benefits has to be set against the background of a prodigious rise in the number of recipients. For example, since 1979 the number of invalidity benefit recipients has increased by 86 per cent. to 1·1 million. The number of attendance allowance recipients has increased by 180 per cent. to 740,000 and the number of those in receipt of the mobility allowance has increased by 470 per cent. to 540,000. This combination of real increases in the amount of benefit paid and the large increase in the number of recipients has produced a 90 per cent. rise in real expenditure since 1979 on benefits for the long-term sick and disabled. That is a record of which the Government can be proud.
Total expenditure on these benefits now stands at over £7·3 billion, a real terms increase of £3{5 billion since 1979. Opposition Members, including the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley), have suggested that increased expenditure attributable to the increased numbers of recipients is in some way not so praiseworthy as an increase in the real value of the benefits. However, I believe that we can express quiet satisfaction, if not pride, in the fact that at a time of tremendous extra demand for disability benefits we have managed to cope with the increased numbers and to maintain and at times to enhance the real value of the benefits.
It is against the background of an unprecedented coverage of social security assistance to disabled people that the Government can properly take credit for devoting some new money to new, imaginative and flexible ways of providing financial help that is outside the benefit system. The independent living fund is already proving to be a unique success in its flexible response to severely disabled people who need to buy high levels of care in order to live independently in their own homes. With that sort of success in mind, I was particularly glad that my right hon. Friend was able to announce to the House in his uprating statement that we are providing £5 million, and the

clearing banks another £5 million, to set up a trust fund to enable Motability to increase its help to disabled people to obtain vehicles.

Mr. Jack Ashley: Will the Minister confirm that a mere 354 people have benefited from the independent living fund?

Mr. Scott: The right hon. Gentleman refers to a mere 354 people. A new scheme such as the independent living fund requires personal visits by social workers to applicants to assess their needs if they are to maintain their independence. For that reason the independent living fund has got off to a slow start, but the vast majority of the payments to those people are made on a weekly basis. Those payments will continue. I am absolutely certain that the independent living fund will be a very important part of the support that the Government give to the more severely disabled people.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: How much has been spent on advertising the existence of the independent living fund? Does it match the £66 million that was spent on advertising shares in nine publicly owned authorities?

Mr. Scott: The hon. Gentleman should make a more sensible intervention than that.

Mr. Wareing: What is the answer?

Mr. Scott: We are talking about a small number of people who need exceptional help in order to maintain their independence in the community. It is the responsibility of the independent living fund's trustees to advertise. They have placed advertisements in the specialist press so that social workers and others who are in touch with severely disabled. people will know what kind of support can be given to the severely disabled. They are also responsible for distributing thousands of leaflets and posters to the offices that are in touch with severely disabled people in order to get the message across. The number of applications being made to the fund is a tribute to that publicity. I am quite confident that the independent living fund will form a very important part of the support for severely disabled people.

Mr. Michael Jack: Is my hon. Friend aware that in the Disablement Income Group's magazine Progress, No. 15, it is confirmed that by August of this year the fund had received 800 applications and that applications are now arriving at the rate of 25 a day?

Mr. Scott: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that additional information.
I turn finally to a subject that I know arouses strong feelings in all parts of the House and that I understand i s to be used as a pretext by the Opposition to vote against the second order. We all know why the hon. Member for Livingston should be seeking, with varying degrees of success, if I understand correctly the radio reports, to persuade his right hon. and hon. Friends—[Interruption.] I am not surprised that Opposition Members do not like listening to this. Do they intend to troop through the Lobby and vote against pension increases and increased benefits for disabled people? Is that where the hon. Member for Livingston is to lead his Back Benchers? I am


astonished that he should be thinking along those lines, and I am not at all surprised that the Opposition should not like to have it spelt out to them.
The two best descriptions that I heard on the radio this morning about the path down which the hon. Member for Livingston is seeking to lead his Back Benchers were, first, that they have scored an own goal and, secondly, that they have shot themselves in the foot. I leave the House to decide which of those two descriptions is the best way to describe the path down which they are going.
This year—as last year—we have not uprated child benefit. However, the hon. Member for Livingston was wrong this morning to describe the stand taken by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State as a freeze for all time. My right hon. Friend is under a duty year by year to review child benefit and to decide whether it should be uprated. It may be that next year or the year after it will be appropriate for child benefit to be increased and to be uprated in line with inflation, but this year we have decided to follow a different path.

Mr. Robin Cook: I am most grateful for this ray of hope at the end of the tunnel. Will the Minister explain precisely what considerations led to this year's freeze when the Chancellor of the Exchequer had a surplus of £10,000 million to give away in the Budget? What possible additional surplus would lead him next year to believe that he was able to afford an increase in child benefit?

Mr. Scott: We shall have to wait and see. If the hon. Gentleman, instead of enunciating the views that he expressed this morning on the radio, had read my hon. Friend's uprating statement, he would have understood perfectly the arguments that lay behind the decision not to uprate child benefit this year.

Mr. Robert McCrindle: Leaving aside the question of uprating, and taking a little further what the Minister has been telling the House in the past few minutes, would it not be helpful if he were on record as telling the House and the country that the question of uprating must be separated from the continued existence of child benefit? Will he give the House an undertaking that at least until the next general election, when a future Government may or may not have a mandate for replacing it, child benefit will continue to be paid as now, with the decision on uprating being left from one year to the next?

Mr. Scott: That is precisely the stance that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has taken. Child benefit will continue to be paid to the mother as now, and the decision will be taken annually whether to uprate it fully or partially. My right hon. Friend will take those decisions at the appropriate time.

Mr. Jim Lester: I recommend to my hon. Friend and to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State an excellent article by Hermione Parker in The Times today about targeting benefit and whether we should be content with a system of child benefit when a family earning £137 a week pays more in tax than it receives in child benefit.

Mr. Scott: I read Miss Parker's article. I thought that it was rather long on analysis and short on prescription. It covered familiar territory. My hon. Friend and I have discussed the matter from time to time and I understand very well that if one applies a universal benefit, one maximises take-up, but the benefit tends to be ill-focused on those who need it most. On the other hand, if a benefit is better focused and targeted on those who need help, there is a take-up problem. Using a phrase which first came from the Opposition, my judgment is that a sensible social security system needs a judicious mixture of universal and targeted benefits. That is a sensible way forward. That judicious mixture may well apply not only to the range of benefits, but to the time when upratings and other measures take effect. It remains the duty of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to weigh all those matters in the balance at each uprating.
It is worth reminding the House that, although child benefit has not been uprated this year, it remains a very important means of support for families in Britain. It comprises one tenth of social security expenditure amounting to some £4·5 billion. That sum continues to go to families in child benefit.

Mr. Tony Banks: Surely the issue is that targeted benefits have to reach the target. The thing that bothers us is that the target benefits are not reaching the people who need them. I hope that the Minister has seen a press release from the London Welfare Rights Officers Group which shows that boroughs around London cannot even get the leaflets to tell people about their rights. What does the Minister propose to do about that?

Mr. Scott: If the hon. Gentleman draws my attention to any such cases, of course I shall look at them. But I acknowledged the problem of take-up. Of course it is in the Government's interests to seek to ensure that take-up is as high as possible. If we provide benefits, we want them to reach people and we shall be taking further steps to increase the take-up of family credit.
Child benefit remains a very important benefit. I want the House to be absolutely clear about the effect of freezing child benefit on the uprating of family credit. Child benefit is disregarded in the assessment of family credit, so unless we compensate families receiving family benefit they will suffer from the fact that child benefit is not to be uprated. Therefore, we are compensating them. We are uprating child credits by the "Rossi" index and then adding to them the 45p by which the child benefit would have been uprated had we increased it in line with the increase in the RPI. Therefore, families on family credit have lost nothing by the freezing of child benefit. As I have explained, they are gaining considerably because we are adding a further 50p to each child credit at a total cost of some £25 million. Thus we are increasing each child credit by 95p in addition to the increase for inflation.
I shall illustrate the effect from next April. A family with just one child aged five and with gross earnings of £75 would presently get family credit of about £25 and would be entitled to more than £30 under the new rates from next April and would still be entitled to some family credit if its gross earnings were up to £139 a week. Families with two children would be even better off. The benefit is not limited to the very poor. Many families on quite reasonable earnings can qualify for the extra help of family credit.


This month we are issuing a leaflet about family credit for every family collecting child benefit from the Post Office. I hope, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State expressed this view at Question Time yesterday, that hon. Members on both sides of the House will take every opportunity to bring the benefits to the attention of their constituents. We are running a radio campaign and at the time of the uprating next April we shall be running a major advertising campaign involving television and other media.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the Minister use his influence with Conservative-controlled Bradford council which is closing three benefit advice shops dealing with more than 50,000 inquiries a year and providing valuable advice? One-stop shops with leaflets, if they actually arrive, are no substitute for the expert advice which, according to the Minister, fits in exactly with his policy on the take-up of benefits.

Mr. Scott: The closure of those advice shops is a matter for Bradford city council. However, our own social security offices are perfectly capable of providing advice to claimants who may need help.

Mr. Rooker: Where is it stated that it is the function of civil servants in the Department of Social Security to give advice? It is not their function. That is why on every leaflet that the Department produces constituents and claimants are directed to citizens advice bureaux. Is it the function of civil servants to give advice? If it is, can we have a proper statement and a proper advice shop in every local office?

Mr. Scott: The Government give massive help to citizens advice bureaux across the country, but there is no question but that the staff of social security offices are willing and able to advise claimants about their rights.
The uprating package for income-related benefits which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already announced and against which I understand the Opposition intend to vote is a package for poorer families. It is an essential element in the Government's efforts to ensure that poorer families are given extra help rather than spreading the jam thinly across the population. We are making extra resources available to children and young people through income support and housing benefit as well as family credit. The benefits are totally in accord with our policy aims of concentrating help on those who need it most. The uprating provides for substantially more than inflation. For example, the income support allowance for a child under 11 has gone up by no less than 9·3 per cent.
I understand the arguments advanced by my hon. Friends and others for universal as opposed to focused benefits. I repeat my belief that we need a judicious mixture. Without prejudging next year, I believe that our priorities this year are absolutely right to concentrate help in the way that I have discussed with the House. It is a generous uprating which directs massive resources to where they are most needed. It is a substantial increase in a programme which is already the biggest in Government. Our proposals strike a fair balance between protecting the interests of benefit recipients and the interests of those who pay for those benefits. I commend the orders to the House.

Mr. Robin Cook: I am delighted that the Minister began by putting on the record the contrast between the ways in which the Government and the last Labour Government treated pensioners. He was encouraged by my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) to place on record—and, as he admitted, it is factually correct—that under the Labour Government the state pension increased by 20 per cent. in real terms over six years. I entirely concur with the Minister that the Government have found that unaffordable; they certainly have not attempted to emulate it. Over the nine years in which they have been in office, the state pension has increased by a beggarly 2 per cent. in real terms. That is the true contrast between the stewardship of the Government and that of the last Labour Government.
It is perfectly fair to focus on those figures, because the state pension is the part of pensioners' income for which the state is responsible. It is not true that the last Labour Government were obsessed only with state pensions. On the contrary, they introduced. SERPS, the earnings-related pension, because they recognised the inadequacy of the basic state pension. Like any income-related or occupational pension, it would have taken a couple of decades to come fully into use. It will never do so, because the Government have remain obsessed with the state pension and only two years ago halved the value of SER PS for future pensioners on the ground—the Minister rightly anticipated this—that its future value would not be affordable. The only problem is that, although that was a statement by Ministers, it was not subsequently supported by the Government Actuary, who pointed out that the financial costs could be met. It was doubtful whether the political will would be found to meet those costs, which is at the bottom of the contrast.
The debate stems from the uprating statement that was made two months ago. On that occasion, we pressed for an emergency debate so that the House could express a view on the Government's decision to freeze child benefit to death. The application was refused, but the Leader of the House said that the House would have an opportunity to debate the freezing of child benefit when the uprating orders were before the House. He went so far as to promise us a debate before Christmas, which was not much of a concession because it is necessary to resolve the orders before Christmas so that the books can be made up in time for April. We are humble people and take what crumbs we can from the Leader of the House.
Having said that this debate was the right time to express our opposition to the freezing of child benefit, the Government machine has spent the past couple of days on heavy briefing saying that we are voting against the orders because we are opposed to any increase in pensions. For all that I know, it has been briefing people in the Press Gallery that we are in favour of cutting pensions, turning off heating supplies to the elderly and turning them out into the night.
I was startled to read in the Sunday Times that I had turned down a separate vote on child benefit. Given the lengths to which we went to obtain a separate debate, it is rich cheek to suggest that we turned one down. Conservative Members know that that is not true and that the House was never offered a separate debate.


[Interruption.] I asked in the House, and we also asked through the usual channels, for a separate debate on child benefit, but we were consistently refused one.
The Secretary of State prides himself on the fact that he has made no secret of his hostility to child benefit but he has never had the courage to ask the House to put it in cold storage. It is on record in the Sunday Times, courtesy of Rupert Murdoch, that the Secretary of State, or Bernard Ingham—it is not clear who—thinks that there shoud be a separate vote on child benefit. I am happy to assure the Secretary of State that his dearest wish will be fulfilled. We shall provide the House with the opportunity of a separate vote on child benefit in the new year and invite it to consider whether it wants Britain to approach 1992 as the only country in Europe that is running away from child support. Tonight, we shall merely treat with indifference the miserable increases provided for in the uprating order.
Nowhere are the increases more miserable than in those offered to pensioners. The uprating order provides that pensions will be increased by 5·9 per cent. in April but long before April inflation will hit 7 per cent. Moreover, a large part of that inflation will hit pensioners especially hard as a result of Government action. The cost of electricity has increase by this year by 9 per cent., and in April it will increase a further 6 per cent. Water has increased by 10 per cent. this year and in April it will increase by by a further 10 per cent. Gas has increased by 6 per cent. this year and in April will increase by a further 6 per cent. Rents have increased this year by 12 per cent. and in April will increase by a further 10 per cent. All those increases are in sectors directly under the influence of the Government, but they are all increasing at a greater rate than that which the Government are offering pensioners.

Mr. Edward Leigh: While the hon. Gentleman is dealing with pensioners, perhaps he will reflect on the wise words of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that there is no point in promising the earth but delivering the International Monetary Fund. In so reflecting, will he say what happened to the pensioners' Christmas bonus in 1975 and 1976?

Mr. Cook: I have already told the House—the hon. Gentleman needs to be told the same thing twice before he gets it through both ears, so I will repeat myself—that under the last Labour Government pensioners' income increased by 20 per cent. in real terms, despite the IMF, the difficulty that the Government faced, and the fact that we did not have oil revenues to squander on the rich.

Mr. Rooker: My hon. Friend has made it quite clear that the Opposition will facilitate a specific and targeted vote on the freezing of child benefit. Will he make it clear that the Opposition will be prepared to make it a free vote? Will the Government do the same?

Mr. Scott: In the heat of the moment, the hon. Gentleman may have used words that, when he checks Hansard, may not prove to be accurate. He said that under the Labour Government pensioners' incomes increased by 20 per cent. in real terms; they increased by only 3 per cent.

Mr. Cook: We should be delighted to have the Minister's figures on the record as often as he cares to repeat them. Does the Minister agree that under the

Government pensions have increased by only 2 per cent.? I will give way to him if he will agree about the clear contrast between increases of 20 per cent. under the last Labour Government and only 2 per cent. under this one. Moreover, that 2 per cent. increase has been made over the past nine years. The Minister is anxious to talk about the last Labour Government, but it would be nice if he was equally as anxious to discuss the Government's miserable record.
Another set of figures are relevant—

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. John Moore): The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) is wriggling.

Mr. Cook: I am not wriggling. We would welcome confirmation of those figures from the Secretary of State. There is a tenfold difference between them, and it was achieved in two thirds of the time, which is why Labour Members can hold up their heads about what the Labour Government did for pensioners.
Ministers constantly take refuge in the increase in SERPS and what has happened to occupational pensions, but they should be ashamed of what they have done to state pensions.
Another set of figures is more relevant than the issue of prices—those for inflation, not only in prices but in earnings. The Labour Government provided for pensions to be increased in line not with prices but with earnings. If that formula had been retained, the basic state pension today would be worth £11 a week more for the single pensioner and £18 a week more for couples, which is about a quarter of its present value. That is the measure of the difference between the record of the Labour Government and this one.

Mr. McCrindle: rose—

Mr. Cook: I will give way later. I anticipate that the hon. Gentleman will want to say something about child benefit, so he may wish to wait until I reach that part of my speech.
While prices have increased by 5·9 per cent. over the past year, earnings have risen by 8·6 per cent. Why was it adequate for the pension to keep pace with prices when everybody else was trying to get ahead of prices? That difference between inflation of prices and inflation of earnings would mean that the increase that we are debating tonight, had it gone up with earnings, would be almost half as much again—that is, an extra £1·15 a week for a single pensioner. That is the equivalent of a daily newspaper every day or half a pint of milk a day. That is the meaning of £1 a week if one lives on the subsistence income of so many pensioners, and that is what the order cheats them of.

Mr. McCrindle: The hon. Gentleman has made the perfectly reasonable point that, under his Government, pensions were linked to earnings, whereas they are now linked to prices. Does he consider it appropriate to remind the House that, desirable though that objective may have been, out of the five years during which his Government were in office, it was possible to carry through that link on only three occasions? That was as a result, I seem to recall, of the appalling economic situation over which he presided.

Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman was good enough to say that my point was entirely reasonable. Let me respond in the same moderate way. He has also made a perfectly reasonable point. The pension was fully uprated in line with earnings three years out of five, which compares starkly with the performance of this Government, who have not uprated in line with earnings in one out of nine years. The bottom line is that, as a result of the three increases, the pension was worth 20 per cent. more at the end of those five years. Conservative Members cannot get away from that figure.
Many pensioners will not smell a penny from this uprating, because they are the victims of last April's cuts. Last April, they found that the cash that they received exceeded their entitlement under the new rules. As a result, their benefit was frozen at its current level, and it will not go up with inflation next April. Next April, 500,000 claimants will get no increase as a result of transitional protection. The reason they are caught in the new version of the property trap that was invented by the Government is that they were receiving extra additions for diet, laundry and heating, all of which were abolished in April.

Mr. Frank Field: By definition, targeted.

Mr. Cook: As my hon. Friend says, by definition, all those extra additions were targeted on the frail, the elderly and the disabled. We are talking not just about 500,000 claimants but about 500,000 of the most vulnerable and most disabled claimants. The Disability Alliance calculates that it will take several years before some of the most severely disabled claimants get an increase in any uprating order.
If there is one thing worse than getting no increase because one is receiving transitional protection, it is losing one's transitional protection. It is appropriate to reflect on the thousands of claimants who, since last April, have lost their transitional protection and. next April will find themselves worse off in cash terms than they were last April.
Three weeks ago, I brought to the attention of the House claimants who had lost their transitional protection, because, under the party of the family, they were ill-advised enough to get married, and that triggered the loss of their transitional protection. I share with the House three other cases, all of whom were corralled among the 88 per cent. last April who we were told were not losers as a result of the changes.
The first is a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn), Mrs. Edwards. Mrs. Edwards was in receipt of £7·77 towards the extra costs of a diet that she required for herself. Since last April, her husband has died. As a result of the death of her husband there was triggered a fresh assessment of entitlement to social security. In the course of that fresh assessment she lost all her transitional protection, even though it was in respect of an allowance for her own dietary and health needs. She still has the same health needs, but she gets no help for them.

Mr. Frank Field: There is targeting.

Mr. Cook: The second case comes to me from Sandwell citizens advice bureau. It relates to Mrs. Finden, aged 85 and a widow for 26 years. She is severely disabled with arthritis. Recently, Mrs. Finden had the misfortune to be admitted to hospital for seven weeks. After six weeks her

benefit was suspended. She came out of hospital only one week later, but, because her benefit had been suspended, when she came out there was a fresh assessment of her benefit. Because there was a fresh assessment of her benefit, she lost her transitional protection. Having come out of hospital, she is £3·25 a week worse off. In its letter, the citizens advice bureau explained:
We find it difficult to explain to this elderly and confused claimant why her benefit has gone down.
The Government are putting doctors in the bizarre position of advising patients that, irrespective of their health, it would be better to get out within six weeks, because they might otherwise lose part of their benefit.
It is not only pensioners who are losing transitional protection. One can lose transitional protection by having children. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) has drawn my attention to the case of one of his constituents, Mr. Peter McKay. In April, Mr. Peter McKay was left with £11·50 a week transitional protection for laundry and diet. His wife recently had another child. The other child should have brought about an entitlement to increase in income support of £10·75 a week. However, as their benefit already exceeded their entitlement by more than that sum, they did not get a penny of the additional sum to which they had been entitled for that child. In other words, they are left with an extra mouth to feed and no extra resources. Effectively, they are being asked to spend on the child the resources that formerly went to Mr. McKay for his own diet.
That case brings us naturally and inevitably to the most objectionable part of the uprating order. The Minister said that this is a package for poor families. We certainly assent. It is a package to make families poorer. Paragraph 8 of the order provides that child benefit will be frozen for the second year running. To be fair to the Secretary of State, when he spoke of uprating, he made no pretence that the decision had been reluctantly forced on him this year alone by the shortage of ready cash. It would be difficult to make that case. The Chancellor is sitting on a Budget surplus which is substantial enough to support even his solid frame. The last time he counted the surplus, he came up with a figure of £10,000 million. It is fair to say that people who have made stabs at it since then have come up with larger figures.
How much bigger must the Budget surplus be before the Government can afford to increase child benefit'? These are the circumstances in which the Secretary of State should be grabbing his share for claimants. The rich had their share of the Budget in March. It is now time for claimants to get the crumbs from the table. Instead, the Secretary of State is planning to spend £100 million less next year than he planned to spend last January in the expenditure White Paper.
That is the background to the freeze in child benefit. We have a Chancellor who has more money than he expected, and a Secretary of State who discovers that he has more room to spare in his budget than expected. It should not have been so difficult for the Secretary of State to get the money out of the Treasury. After all, who is the man with whom he negotiates at the Treasury but the Chief Secretary? Who was the Chief Secretary two years ago? He was the Minister for Social Security, who, only two years ago in Committee said:
we believe that universal child benefit is desirable.
I am afraid that he was wrong. He said:


We are likely to be boringly consistent on that point for the foreseeable future, and, I hope, permanently."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 6 March 1986; c. 684.]
He was the person with whom the Secretary of State had to negotiate—a man who regarded his commitment to universal child benefit as boringly consistent.
Against that background it is quite clear that the reason for the freeze in child benefit is not financial but political. To be fair, the Secretary of State is quite open about it. Since his appointment, I cannot recall the Secretary of State finding a kind word to say about child benefit. The benefit is a sorry thing. It is in the care of a team who are not committed to it. If they were more honest, they would say that they want to abolish it. At least then we would get a separate vote on it. Instead, they are allowing it to fade away by failing to do the annual maintenance.
Let me couch three arguments in terms which even Tory Members can relate to and understand. I invite them to think of child benefit, not as a benefit, but as a tax allowance. After all, it replaced child tax allowance and it is the only means by which we now recognise the extra cost of children. If hon. Gentlemen try to think about it as a tax allowance, I know how much more warmly they will think about it. Had child tax allowance remained, I have not the slightest doubt that they would have uprated it each year without pausing for thought.
It is instructive to compare and contrast what has happened to tax allowances and child benefit. As I said at Question Time yesterday, the married man's tax allowance has increased by 22 per cent. more than the rate of inflation under the Government while child benefit has fallen by 13 per cent. I did not get an answer yesterday, so I ask again: by what possible mental gymnastics can the Government argue that the cost of maintaining a wife has increased by one fifth and the cost of maintaining a child has decreased by one eighth? Why is there not the same chatter about how badly targeted the married man's tax allowance is? After all, like child benefit, it also goes to the rich. Indeed, unlike child benefit, it is worth more to the rich. They get their tax allowance at 40 per cent. not 25 per cent.
That brings me to another consideration why hon. Gentlemen should think of retaining child benefit. Child benefit is a highly efficient benefit. The Tory party claims to be the party of cost efficiency in the public sector. Child benefit has one of the smallest administrative overheads. Its administration costs 2·5 per cent. of total expenditure. That is almost half the administrative cost of family credit which takes 4·5 per cent. of total expenditure. I find it curious that the party of public efficiency should wish to change to a benefit which, pro rata, requires twice as many bureaucrats. I find it odd that the party of targeting is in favour of a benefit in the form of family credit which is so badly aimed.
In January the Secretary of State and the Minister promised us that family credit would hit 60 per cent. of its target. They never explained why. When my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) challenged them, the Minister replied that of course family credit would be better known because more people would know about it. That appeared a rather circular chain of reasoning which was not entirely convincing. In the event, take-up of family credit is not 60 per cent. It is not even the 50 per cent. that family income supplement used to hit. It is still below 40 per cent.
There is now a cheerful cynicism being expressed on Government Back Benches—so far it has not crept forward to the Front Benches—that it is not their fault that the take-up rate is so low. They have done their duty. They have made the benefit available. It is not their fault that people do not rush forward to claim it. That is the look-out of those entitled to it. That argument will not do because Conservative Members are putting forward family credit as a substitute for uprating child benefit and child benefit does not go to 40 per cent., 50 per cent., or 60 per cent., but to 98 per cent. of those who are eligible.

Mr. Frank Field: It is well targeted.

Mr. Cook: It is extremely well targeted on mothers. Ninety-eight per cent. of mothers with young children claim and receive child benefit—not double but nearly treble the number who get on to family credit. I always understood that the Government believed in decisions being market-led and that one should repond to the market. It is clear from the take-up rate that the market demands child benefit. It is to that success story that this House and the Government should stick.
My final reason why the Tory party should retain child benefit and uprate it has been anticipated by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) for the past 10 minutes. The reason why the Treasury Bench and the Government should support child benefit is that, as they so frequently remind us, they are the party of the family. Child benefit is now the only universally applied recognition of the cost of bringing up children. It goes to the women who feed and clothe those children. For many women it is the only income that they can claim as their own and on which they can rely. It gives them a touch of independence of the family budget. As the author of this letter passed to me by Child Poverty Action Group said:
As a woman with 2 children who had a husband earning £250 a week"—
well above family credit level—
but provided us with nothing, the only way we survived was with our child benefit, and that was only because he could not get his hands on it.
That is the reality for many women. That is why the party of the family should support child benefit and its uprating.
It may well be that it is the fault of the father that those children were not being better provided for, but it was certainly not the fault of the children and why should they be penalised by having their benefit frozen? Heaven knows, child benefit is little enough—only one third to a quarter of the cost of bringing up a child in any week. It does not meet many of the new charges being levied on us. For example, for mothers in Bradford under a new Conservative council which now charges them £4 a week for school meals per child, that means over half of their child benefit.
A constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) is a widow with five children. Because she is a widow on widow's benefit she does not receive any family credit. She does not qualify. Nor does she receive any income support because her weekly income is exactly 14p above the income support level. Because she is not in receipt of income support, her children do not qualify for free school meals. Since the Conservatives gained control of Bradford city council she is faced with a weekly bill of £20 for school meals for those five children—an increase of £9 in this year alone. Moreover, under this Conservative Government her child


benefit is now worth £5·50 a week less than in 1979. For that lady child benefit is not, as the Secretary of State described it, a decorative overlay; it is one of the basic foundations of her budget. It is for her family the difference between one cooked meal a day and none.
It is for that lady's sake and the sake of her children that we shall return to this issue in the new year and give the House an opportunity to record its contempt of a Government who can find the cash for open-handed generosity to top rate taxpayers and funds that generosity by tight-fisted meanness to pensioners and children.

Mr. Timothy Raison: I shall not comment or speculate on the sub-plot of the debate this afternoon, which is the intriguing question why the Opposition apparently thought that they would vote against the order and then decided that they would not after all. It is something to do with the fact that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), who is leaving the Chamber, reminded himself that at one point he wanted to be the Opposition Chief Whip, so managed to persuade his colleagues that it would be remarkably foolish to vote against these orders.
I have no intention of voting against these orders because I welcome the increase embodied in them, particularly the greater help for those over 75 and some of the elderly disabled. It would be absurd to do anything other than support them.
Nevertheless, the Government are making a mistake in not uprating child benefit and I regret the decision in article 18 of part III of the order. A policy of continuously freezing child benefit would be a great mistake both politically and, more important, in terms of the interests of families.
I have spoken on this subject a number of times during the past year or so and I do not intend to weary the House by going over all the ground again. However, I could not let this debate pass without making one or two comments. A number of my hon. Friends and I will certainly look for an opportunity during the passage of the Social Security Bill to establish the principle that the existence of child benefit is right, and that for child benefit to do its job it must be uprated with inflation.
The Government say—and I understand the reply that my hon. Friend the Minister has made—that the increase in child benefit would do nothing for those with children on family credit and income support. I am not sure whether that would apply, too, to those on single parent benefit. What really does this attempt at targeting achieve? I remind the House that the money for the uprating was in the last public expenditure White Paper. There was in no sense a demand for additional money if the benefit was to be uprated. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had agreed that the money was available. I am glad to say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is still providing money for uprating in future years. Therefore, it is not just that the economy is in a strong enough condition to bear this, but that the money has been specifically allocated by the Treasury for that purpose, which makes it all the more sad that it should not be used for that.
I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security on the Front Bench. Will he tell us how much, net, will actually be saved by the decision not to uprate child benefit, especially bearing in mind the significant point

that an increase in child benefit would have the advantage of taking out of family credit some of those now receiving it? Those people would then move above the level of means-tested benefits. I wonder whether that factor has been allowed for when calculating the savings to be achieved by not uprating child benefit.
The article by Hermione Parker in today's The Times has already been mentioned. I must say that that was a brilliant statement about the weakness of means-tested benefit. I hope that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench will think about it carefully. What I thought was especially formidable in her article was the way in which she stressed that the more we rely on means-tested benefits, the more we shall increase the culture of dependency, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and others have talked about recently.
There is no doubt that it is the means-tested benefit, much more than the universal benefit, which brings about dependency and, of course, brings about, in conjunction with it, a disincentive to move on to paid employment or to better one's income. That is a serious drawback of all the means-tested benefits. I know that the Government have tried to reduce this in some respects by tapering, and they have had some success. However, there are other parts of the social security system where the incentive for increasing one's income by going out to work, if looked at in hard practical terms, is small indeed.
I do not deny that the problem of dependency exists. It is right that my hon. Friend should focus on that, but I strongly believe that the answer that is being put forward of constant recourse to targeting and means-tested benefit is not meeting the problem.
I have already said that I do not intend to deploy the argument for child benefit at length. We have heard already today that there is a take-up problem with family credit. I believe that the figures for family credit must be considered depressing and, of course, there is also the problem of incentives, to which I have referred. I simply want to stress that, as a country and as a party, we need to work hard to find a family policy that is relevant to current needs. If we look back at the figures of 30 years ago, we see that about half of the poverty was to be found among the old. Happily, that figure is now down to about a quarter, which is a great advance. The substantial advance in the position of old people is entirely good and is due to different factors, including, of course, the spread of second pensions. Although I do not deny that there is poverty among many old people, the overall picture for them is better.
When we think about poverty and hardship today, we must consider especially the people who are trying to bring up young children in circumstances that are often difficult. I, and I suspect a number of other hon. Members, will say that the peculiar factor that has deteriorated especially during the last decade or two has been the enormous increase in family breakdown. In my surgery, I am constantly struck by the way in which in earlier times it was really quite unusual for housing problems to be essentially a product of divorce or of one-parent families. Now, over and over again, that is the factor causing the tough social difficulties. I believe that that factor has a great relevance to child benefit, because it appears that women, especially, who are trying to bring up children in difficult circumstances, often against a very rough background in a harsh great city, are the people whom we should be considering.


Although I acknowledge that family credit and income support are useful and that the increases in such benefits are valuable to those who receive them, I nevertheless believe strongly that the continuity of child benefit—the fact that one knows when one will receive it without any means test—gives parents bringing up children the kind of confidence that very many of them badly need. I would apply that not only to the poorest and those facing the toughest of all situations, but to many others, especially those who are not quite poor—those who, relatively speaking, if one looks at the total income of the parents, should be not at all badly off. If we are thinking about a genuine family policy designed to meet the difficulties that people face in the circumstances of which I have spoken, child benefit should form an important part of that.
Of course, there is no point in saying that child benefit should be an important part of that policy unless one is prepared to go on to say that, for it to be meaningful, it must be uprated. It cannot be allowed to be frozen and to wither away.
I hope that, when the Minister said that there has been no long-term decision about the uprating of child benefit, he meant it. I am sure that he did, because he is an honourable man. I hope that the Government will take on board the fact that they have the resources allocated to uprate child benefit in the future and that the social and political arguments and arguments of straight Conservative philosophy all point in that direction.
I recall that last time I spoke I was interrupted by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Howell) who said that it was absurd to give all this money to people who could perfectly well afford to do without it, and what would the old people say about what was going on. I do not believe that most of the old people begrudge the existence of child benefit, any more than those who receive child benefit begrudge the fact that very prosperous old people, perhaps, receive the £10 Christmas bonus and can travel at very low rates on the London public transport system. I do not believe that that is the prevailing mood in this country. People by and large are reasonable and civilised.
I am glad that the window has not been completely shut, but I believe that it is of great importance that we should uprate child benefit. We should consider it a major instrument of social policy. I hope that the Government will announce shortly that they aim to uprate it.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. I appreciate the fact that the right hon. Gentleman was able to say what he had to say within 10 minutes. Many hon. Members wish to speak and I hope that they will follow the right hon. Gentleman's example.

Mr. Frank Field: I shall do that if I can, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish to make only two points. I should first like to add to what my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) said about Labour's record on pensions. I shall comment on that, because the Government say that they are so interested in targeting. They tried to question my hon. Friend's figures about the

20 per cent. increase in real terms for pensioners. I am making a distinction between the increase in pensions and the increase in living standards.
If we consider the most vulnerable group of pensioners—those who during the period of the last Labour Government and this Government have been completely dependent on the state pension—we see that their living standards rose in real terms by 20 per cent. under Labour. Therefore, I should have thought that a Government who tell us that they are interested in targeting would have paid some attention to that fact and drawn the attention of the House to Labour's record. The Conservative Government's record stands up to scrutiny, but they have a largely untargeted programme wherein the largest gains in living standards among pensioners have gone to the richest. That is a strange form of targeting from the Government.
Secondly, I welcome the statement by my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston that the House will be given a clear opportunity early in the new year to vote on child benefit. My hon. Friend deployed the case against the Secretary of State, who seems to have an unhealthy prejudice against child benefit. The right hon. Gentleman does not say to the House, "under my stewardship, child benefit will not be increased," because he knows that, if he did, in no time some of us would have him in the courts. He has a duty each year to decide whether child benefit should be increased, given the changes in circumstances during the previous 12 months. Legally, he cannot make such a statement, but he shows in everything else that he says and in every bit of body language at the Dispatch Box that he is intent on not increasing child benefit. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston. We shall have an opportunity early in January to deploy, and win, the argument against Conservative Back Benchers.
If we have done our work and try to get Conservative Members to join us in the Division Lobby, and we fail, and if my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston is right about the prejudice on the Treasury Bench against increasing child benefit, we must accept the challenge. The Opposition and pressure groups outside must accept that challenge, or we will be presented every year with opportunities in the uprating or on Opposition Supply days to make a fuss, but it will only be gesture politics. We will know that the Government have no intention of moving down the line that we want. If we are not in business to perpetuate gesture politics, after January's debate we shall have to come up with new ideas and statements which do not just recite the old phrases that please us and some Conservative Members but take the argument into the enemy camp and challenge the enemy on its assumptions. If we fail to win the vote in January, we must start putting forward alternatives. My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston referred to the wall of resistance, which we will meet, to increasing child benefit.
As well as keeping child benefit, we should consider challenging the Government to reintroduce child tax allowances. People may say that that is an inconsistent position for me to hold. I favour abolishing all tax allowances and reducing the standard rate to between 12p and 15p in the pound. I am not, however, above a political or tactical manoeuvre, to score points and have a conversation with the electorate and, if successful, to ensure that the funds that exist in the form of a child tax allowance can be put back into the child benefit scheme by a future Government three years hence.


Some will say that the group to lose out will be some of the most vulnerable, those who earn their poverty and do not earn enough to pay tax. It would not be impossible, however, to have a child tax scheme that allowed such people to opt for a cash payment. The majority of families could claim the tax allowance against their tax liabilities and those below the tax threshold could pick up a cash payment, just as happens with child benefit. I again emphasise that I am talking not about phasing out child benefit but about running the two schemes together. We shall face that challenge as an Opposition if we are serious about using the next three years to have a conversation with the electorate so that they trust us with the reins of Government after the votes are counted and do not return us yet again to the Opposition Benches.
As it will be a challenge to us, so, too, will it be a challenge to the pressure groups. We cannot expect them to trot out the same old arguments as though we live in the 1960s and 1970s. If my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston is right, as I believe he is, in describing the prejudice of the Secretary of State and other members of the Government against increasing child benefit during the life of this Government, they, too, need to put their thinking caps on and come up with proposals, which the Government may implement, which safeguard the child benefit scheme.
If there is one lesson that I have learnt from watching the Government's behaviour over 10 years it is that few Opposition Members can dislodge the Prime Minister when she has an idea in her head, although sometimes Conservative Members and supporters can do so. But when the Prime Minister puts the ball down, we can pick it up and run in a slightly different direction from the one she expected. If we are not to have three years of these sorts of debates, three years of exciting ourselves and rehearsing the same old arguments and three years of defeats for our constituents and poor families, we need not look over our shoulders, worrying about what the pressure groups will think. We must seek room to manoeuvre—the room allowed for us by the Government—and to secure victories.
I could not be more pleased not only by the quality of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston but by the promise of a debate in the new year and the chance to put hon. Members "on the spot", if I may put it as gently as that. All of us must learn from the vote. If it goes our way, the Government will lose. If it does not, the challenge will be presented to all of us on the Opposition Benches and to pressure groups: what will we do for the remaining three years of the Parliament? Will we trot out the same old case, or will we think of something new so that, at the end of that period, we shall have delivered something to the people whom we represent?

Mrs. Gillian Shephard: I should like to make a few comments on hon. Members' observations on child benefit. We should emphasise that it remains a universal benefit to all families and will have to be reviewed in the autumn, as my hon. Friend the Minister said. My hon. Friend said also that there should be a judicious mixture of universal and means-tested benefits. We need to remind ourselves that, if the benefit were uprated in line with inflation, it would cost £200 million. We should ask ourselves whether it is right to continue to

uprate the benefit while paying it to all families, including the super-rich, whom the Opposition have mentioned repeatedly in the context of tax cuts in last year's Budget.
Of course child benefit is much valued and needed by many families, but hon. Members must recall some of the media publicity which was given at the time of the last debate on this subject, about a month ago, to those receiving the benefit who said that they did not need it, that they were spending their benefit on antiques, ski holidays or gymkhana fees. Of course, those are anecdotal examples and represent a minority, but surely they mean that we should look at the system again. The debate after the recess will perhaps give such an opportunity.
Before the introduction of family credit, child benefit was undoubtedly a lifeline for the poorest families and a useful addition to the family budget for those on middle incomes. But this debate is taking place when the average take-home pay of a man with two children has increased by 30 per cent. since 1979 and when prosperity levels have been transformed in areas with good employment prospects. Given that fact, there is more than ever a sound reason for giving most help to families with children who need it most, via income support and family credit.
Next year, in addition to the £5 billion that will go to the neediest families, there will be an extra £70 million through, for example, a combination of child allowance, income support and housing benefit, and also help through the exceptional cold weather payment scheme which will be extended to families with children between the ages of two and five. That will help a further 500,000 families.
But the debate is not about whether we should have child benefit or give help to the poorest families through income support and family credit, but rather whether in today's circumstances of increasing prosperity in large areas of the country we should continue to pay a universal perk to all families, even the super-rich. That debate should be pursued.
The "save child benefit" lobby claims, validly in my opinion, that the sheer permanence and ease of child benefit particularly helps the poorest families, a feature of whose lives is fluctuation of income and circumstances week by week. There are still far too many delays, errors and sheer complexities in claiming income support and family credit, and their take-up, although much improved, needs to be improved still further. I hope that the computer programme outlined yesterday and now well under way, and the Department's efforts to improve the take-up of all benefits, will improve the benefit system's responsiveness to families in real need.
A recent publication of tables showing the interaction of tax and benefits illustrates that the systems can no longer interact to create a combined deduction of 100 per cent. or more, which was clearly a ridiculous situation. But, as has already been said, attention must now be paid to the fact that, as the tables also illustrate, crossing a national insurance contribution threshold can sometimes mean the same thing.
Finally, it must be obvious to everyone that the real solution for families with children must lie in the continued strengthening of the country's economy and, in particular for families with children, the continued reduction in unemployment rates. We have seen recently that we have the lowest unemployment figures in the EEC. That strengthening of the economy, together with the judicious


mixture mentioned by my hon. Friend the Minister, should provide the right sort of help to families who need it.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in the debate. Since being elected to the House I have spent some time taking part in debates such as this, but this one has a slightly different flavour from the others. The difficulty about debating important subjects based on uprating statements is that we tend to be bedevilled by technical detail and quantities of money that may or may not be needed. Therefore, it is not easy to discuss some of the interesting points that the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) raised. I have always felt that to be a matter for regret.
I greeted with enthusiasm the announcement of a debate made by the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook). He made an expert and interesting speech which will repay study when it is printed in the Official Report. I exhort the hon. Gentleman to make the motion that he plans to put before the House as broad as possible to enable us to have a wide-ranging debate. There is a need for that, although I understand that the hon. Gentleman's main intention is to try to get his hands on the vote for child benefit and in that regard, too, I would encourage him. One thing that has come out of today's debate—it does not always happen—is that there is a cross-current of opinion between the Government and Opposition Benches on the future of child benefit and whether the argument about universality versus selectivity has been won or lost in the Government's mind.
I hope that the Government will say something about what is in their mind for child benefit in the longer term. I too know, as the hon. Member for Birkenhead said, that there are legal difficulties because the Secretary of State has a statutory duty to look at the situation afresh each year, making it difficult for him to make blanket political statements in the House. But it also makes it fiendishly difficult for those of us who take a genuine interest in some of these detailed questions to make assumptions and judgments about what is in the Government's mind for the future. I hope that the Government will find some way of telling us whether it is their genuine intention to freeze child benefit or universal benefits generally for the foreseeable future. It is right that we should know that. However, I fully understand the difficulties that the Secretary of State may have in being as explicit.
The whole question of universality has gone by default, and that is a mistake on the part of Opposition Members. The hon. Member for Livingston said that if these benefits had been treated as child allowances they would have suffered an entirely different fate at the hands of this Administration, and that is true. Selectivity inevitably leads to the familiar and well-rehearsed problems of poverty traps, means testing and take-up rates. Worrying developments have accrued from the new system introduced in April. Some of the reforms have simplified the system—one of the Government's key objectives. The social security staff who operate the system are finding it easier. It must also be recognised that some of the new levels for child credits, income support and the family

credit system are making an impact once the problem of take-up is resolved. It would be foolish not to recognise that. However, there are severe and substantial problems in some other areas which relate directly to the problem of selective benefits in general.
We often forget that one of the principal reasons for the original Beveridge report was the importance of the horizontal distribution of income throughout the lifetime of a Parliament. There were periods that could easily be marked as times when extra finance was necessary. Starting a family is an obvious one to choose. Therefore, the Beveridge plan was an attempt to try to redistribute money along those lines. That is an incontrovertible argument which is as true now as it was then. That should be borne in mind in addition to all the other arguments about cheaper administration.
If we are to start on a great debate about the relative merits of universality versus selectivity, the Government will have to take into account other available tax reliefs such as mortgage tax relief and pension tax relief, because they are an important part of the argument. There is a value in universal benefits that goes beyond their financial impact and that is part of the social cement; part of the collective provision that we all accept in other areas which prevents social division. There is a host of arguments that we should have an opportunity to deploy in the House in their wider context, not necessarily within the technical detail of an uprating statement such as we are debating tonight.
Today's debate has been focused, understandably, on child benefit, but I am also worried about the position of some pensioners. There has been the usual barney about whether the last Labour Government paid more or less than what the present Government are paying. That is all very instructive, but I have heard it before. Leaving aside such banter, I believe that there are substantial problems for pensioners who rely exclusively on state pensions, particularly the more elderly. The Government have recognised those problems and have put £200 million into the system. Although I do not think that that goes far enough, it is none the less a step in the right direction, and as such I welcome it.
If the Government are to tell us their view on the continued universality of child benefit, they will also have to address the question of the general increase in wealth. We need to bridge a gap, particularly for those exclusively on state pensions. Of course we need to price-protect the increases, but we must protect a particular generation of pensioners before people can start claiming state earnings-related pension in 20, 30 or perhaps 40 years' time. I shall be all right when I retire, but the present generation of pensioners are suffering and will continue to suffer. Their suffering must indeed worsen in relative terms, because, if the Government and the Chancellor are to be believed, the country's general wealth is increasing quite fast. Pensions are being increased in accordance with the increase in prices, but that does not give pensioners the opportunity to share in the general increase in wealth that is available to everyone who happens to be in work rather than relying on a price-protected benefit.
Having announced a £200 million increase, the Government will be forced to come back year in, year out to deal with the problem—which I accept will disappear when SERPS comes into effect substantially. The problem should not be minimised. It does the Government no good to beat their chests about what they are achieving for the


average income of the average pensioner. It is cold kale to pensioners in my constituency and others, who are at the sharp end and are forced to live on a state retirement pension and nothing else, to hear what the average income increase has been over the past five or 10 years.
The social security advisory committee has recognised the problem and I support its views. I do not go so far as to say that £5 billion is needed so that we can put all the money back into pensioners' pockets immediately; that would be an unreasonable request. From time to time, however, in appropriate circumstances, there must be an uprating that goes beyond what the retail prices index demands. Otherwise, pensioners will find themselves inexorably losing out on the country's general wealth creation.
I saw a worrying leader in The Guardian recently—around the end of last month—which mentioned a sudden inexplicable drop in the number of people claiming benefits. Have the Government any explanation? They may say that the unemployment figures have fallen. Of course we cannot obtain as detailed and accurate statistics as we used to under the old 1983 system of data and statistics provision.
I am also worried about staff requirements. I am worried by some of the conclusions of the Moodie report, by what the National Audit Office has said about the conditions in which staff work and by the comments of the Public Accounts Committee in its statement last month. Nevertheless, if the motion is pushed to the vote, which I understand is now less likely to happen, I shall support the Government as far as they go—on the strict understanding that it is only because they have given more money to elderly pensioners.

Mr. Michael Jack: I pay tribute to the thoughtful comments of the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), who spoke with care and compassion—as have other hon. Members on both sides of the House.
So far we have not heard much about how the massive increase in Government expenditure associated with the upratings is to be paid for. I understand that £1 in every £3 of the Government's expenditure goes into social security; when the Labour party was in government the proportion was £1 in £4. We have heard the Government criticised for not spending the substantial revenues that the Chancellor appears to have at his disposal on matters identified by Opposition Members. The Chancellor has, I think quite cleverly, pointed to a strategy of repaying debt, reducing the cost of servicing that debt and thus enabling us to fund social security expenditure prudently.
Some 25 per cent. of my constituents are pensioners, and they warmly welcome the upgrading. But, while everyone clearly benefits, some people are left in some form of need. I welcome one part of the upgrading statement, and some comments by Ministers have been important in underpinning the position of the basic state pension in our benefit structure. There is a view that as people have more occupational pensions the state pension becomes less important, but I believe that the state pension is crucial because it is ultimately an insurance against life's chances. Someone in a good job may be ill and thus unable to realise his full income potential. His occupational

pension would necessarily fall away, but the state pension would be there to guarantee at least some income for working people who run into difficulties
We have heard comments about income support and family credit, and the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire mentioned the Beveridge report. Beveridge stated:
The third principle is that social security must be achieved by co-operation between the State and the individual. The State should offer security for service and contribution. The State in organising security should not stifle incentive, opportunity, responsibility".
The report spoke of "encouragement for voluntary action", and the uprating of family credit plays up to that. It means that families will be supported to the tune of some £5 billion a year. A family earning up to £9,000, with two children aged 12 and 14, could receive help via family credit.
As the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire pointed out, we have heard a certain amount of banter across the House about who did what. Pensioners, however, greatly value the present Government's contribution in respect of inflation. They know that an uprating of 5·9 per cent. will be, by and large, the rate of inflation over the 12-month period. What the Opposition's argument has missed out is the dynamic effect. It is all right uprating and catching up in 12 months' time, but when the Labour party was in government and inflation reached double figures there was no catching up in the intermediate period. That was when the real value of pensions disappeared. Labour also contributed to a reduction in pensioner income by changing from the historical to the forecast method. But I do not want to get stuck in too sterile an argument. Some wider issues to do with pensions can also be raised.
We should remember that the Government have a large commitment to those who are coming into pension—people who contribute to their occupational pensions and are coming up to retirement. About £10·7 billion worth of tax-based assistance goes to people who are saving through pensions. So when we discuss the Government's commitment to pensioners we cannot ignore that other side of the equation.
I want to talk for a moment about pensioners' incomes. It is interesting to discover that 150,000 married couples and single pensioners over the age of 65 pay higher rate tax, so that sort of income has spread a long way up the spectrum.

Mr. Kirkwood: They are only a tiny minority.

Mr. Jack: Perhaps, but about 50,000 of them pay capital gains tax. They represent the leading edge of the spread of wealth. However, I lake the Opposition's point that, to counter-balance this, 1·9 million pensioner tax units have occupational pensions of less than £1,000 a year. That shows that there is a management problem and that, welcome as the uprating of pensions is, we have to manage the gap between some who depend only on state benefits and others who are extremely well off. I would encourage debate about that.
My mother, who lives in a rest home, sold her house and lives on the income she receives and on attendance allowance. In spite of all that, she ends up paying tax. She receives a small occupational pension of £1,500 from my father's estate, and ends up paying £9·95 a month in tax, Although my hon. Friend the Minister is not responsible


for Treasury matters, I implore him to suggest to the Treasury that we may be able to help pensioners by removing them from the tax bracket in which they now find themselves. That is rather a sore point.
My hon. Friend the Minister has shown compassion in his dealings. I know from my dealings with pensioners that one of the problems with the uprating statement is that it cannot, by definition, deal with some anomalies that have arisen because of the changes in social security arrangements. I shall not go though a litany of cases, but I ask my hon. Friend to honour his pledge in the foreseeable future and to knock off some of the rough edges that have become evident as we have become used to the new system. Some pensioners require help; others have considerable wealth at their disposal.
I want to put the uprating into another context. We must never forget that people who work pay for those benefits. Today, 2·3 national insurance payers per beneficiary bear the burden of our social security system; by the end of the century that will have dropped to 1·8. The Government are right to get to grips with the problem of what we spend this large sum on, so that the burden may be properly borne in future.
Much as I support my hon. Friend's announcement about Motability, and much as I support the enormous amount of work that he has done to help the disabled, my plea is that he will examine the cases put forward to him which involve the relationship between income support, the transitional arrangements and the other benefits that go with them. I do not want my hon. Friend's fine record to be marred by a series of cases of people losing benefit because of changes in other benefits.
The benefit uprating statement is to be warmly welcomed. It clearly shows the Government's commitment to helping those in need, and it forms a useful platform from which to go forward and make further improvements.

Mr. Jack Ashley: The hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) diplomatically said that the Minister had a fine record, but asked him to look at the problems of the disabled. I am glad that plea was made. The hon. Member for Fylde mentioned rough edges; disabled people get a rough deal from this uprating. It is deplorable that the Government should add to the heavy burdens of disabled people by today's tardy uprating.
Income is a major problem for almost all disabled people. I suggest three requirements. First, basic needs should be met, regardless of what else happens, such as changes in a person's disability or in the Government. Secondly, additional costs should be covered. Thirdly, there should be a basic income good enough to live on.
The Government have failed disabled people on those three counts and the uprating has done nothing to change that. Social security benefits are crucial for disabled people. Most of them have been affected by the 1988 changes. The citizens advice bureaux surveyed people on social security and concluded:
The overriding impression of the April changeover has been the distress and lack of understanding caused by administrative confusion and poor communications. Not all those surveyed were disabled, but it is very likely that the

elderly disabled were amongst those most distressed and finding greatest difficulty understanding the blows that were hitting them.
That is a strong statement.
The nature of the transitional payment has not been fully understood by some disabled people. Many of them do not realise that a transitional payment means that they will get no increases in 1989 to cope with inflation. Some of them will not receive increases for many years. The most severely disabled people face a period of declining real income—a terrible thing.
A major disaster for disabled people has been the replacement of the familiar, understood and targeted additional cost payment with the simplistic disability premiums. Disability is an individual matter and the additional cost payments were related to individuals, which was important. Premiums are group payments. The Government were warned by my right hon. and hon. Friends that these payments would be inappropriate, and so they are. They are based on averages and so cannot be adequate for the worst cases.
The disastrous consequences were concealed last April by the provision of transitional payments; but unfortunately for the Government, and even more unfortunately for severely disabled people, sharp increases in mortgage payments have shredded these transitional payments coverages. A glaring example is that of the disabled owner-occupier with a rising mortgage bill who has received no additional cash in hand to pay for it. All that has happened is that the part of the money labelled income support has increased and the part labelled transitional payment has decreased.
Disabled people with rising rents do not have their transitional payments squeezed and that is as it should be. The treatment of owner-occupiers is anomalous and unjustified and it is hitting and hurting. The Minister must bear responsibility for that.
Ministers have claimed that many people are better off as a result of the 1988 changes. That was only because of the transitional payments and there is no doubt that those have turned out to be a Government confidence trick. Regulation after regulation has meant blow after blow for those people. A few days in hospital or a temporary change of circumstances can lead to the end of transitional protection. Whatever the change, it makes disabled people worse off and none of the changes can make the disabled man or woman better off. For disabled people, there is no Santa Claus in the Government and the House should recognise that.
The issue of disability costs is a nightmare for disabled people and a challenge to the Government, but before the Government act they must look again at the survey findings of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys which show that additional costs are £6·10 a week on average. That figure must not be allowed to become part of the accepted disablement fact file. The Disablement Income Group was astonished by that and the detailed critique that it produced must be taken into account by Ministers.
The Government—and the Minister of State in particular—while accepting that 6 million people have been identified as disabled, have tried to whitewash the importance of that by saying that a significant proportion are only slightly disabled. The Minister said that at his press conference. If the Minister is right, he must acknowledge that the low figure of £6·10 for average


additional costs arises because those who were surveyed include many slightly disabled people with low additional costs. The logic is impeccable. Severely disabled people who have higher additional costs—in some cases, very high additional costs—are not covered. The Minister must accept that.
In his speech this afternoon, the Minister praised the independent living fund. Surely he blushed when he did that because the figures reveal the reality. Only £125,000 has been paid to a mere 355 people. On my estimate, that is about £353 each on average. Five hundred and seventy-four people have been rejected and 1,574 people are being considered. The social security changes took place nine months ago. As a safety net, the independent living fund is too late and too full of holes.
What matters basically to disabled people is how much money there is for normal living and the OPCS survey revealed just how badly disabled people fare. In 1985, when the survey was carried out, the average non-pensioner disabled couple, after allowing for additional costs, received just £91·70 a week compared with £136·50 for a non-disabled couple of working age. For pensioners, the gap was smaller, but still significant. It was £83·70 compared with £93·70 and, at that level, £10 is a fortune. Those stark figures reveal the tough, harsh and hard life led by disabled people, with their reliance on social security. The Government have failed to honour their promises and have failed disabled people. It is a sad, sorry and shameful record.

Mr. Michael Irvine: I am sure that all hon. Members, irrespective of party, are anxious to do their best for pensioners in need. They are, after all, the generation that saw us through the second world war and preserved our national freedom. It is right that we should make proper provision for those pensioners who need support. How best to do that? The Opposition call for more—and they call for more across the board. It is far more difficult and far more complicated than that.
I am inclined to think that my hon. Friend the Minister was right when, in his opening speech, he called for a judicious mix of across-the-board benefits and selective, targeted benefits. I have no doubt that it is right for the Government to maintain the basic state retirement pension in real terms. The question is, what should be done with the extra money beyond that which becomes available? If the extra money is squandered in across-the-board benefits, it means that less money is available for those who really need it.
Pensioners are a disparate lot. Sadly, there are those who are in real need, but there are also many well-to-do pensioners. There are many who have paid off their mortgages, who have received substantial lump sums on retirement and who benefit from quite substantial occupational pension schemes. If we pay across-the-board benefits, the inevitable effect will be that money and benefits go to many who do not really need them. It follows that less is available to help those who really do need them. I have no doubt that the extra money should be targeted, but I agree that targeting is not as easy as it seems at first sight. There are dangers and difficulties about targeting, which have to be avoided.
Take-up is one such difficulty. Family credit is an example of that, because far too few families are taking

advantage of family credit, which was introduced especially to assist them. The other major disadvantage, apart from take-up failure, is the danger of creating a poverty trap.
A more constructive approach should be adopted to see how far those two difficulties can be overcome. We should be looking for a way of targeting benefits and, at the same time, overcoming the difficulties and drawbacks. Leaving aside the argument about targeted benefits as opposed to universal benefits, far more time should be spent on th e task of ensuring a better take-up of targeted benefits and on introducing further improvements in the taper system, which has proved so useful in overcoming the poverty trap. We should approach the matter along those constructive lines.
Many Opposition Members—I exempt specifically the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field)—see the matter in black and white. They believe that universal benefits are the only way forward and they call for more without realising that there is more to it than that. The Government who do the best for pensioners will be the Government who keep inflation under control and who generate the prosperity and economic growth to provide the wherewithal to improve pensions. The Government will do best for pensioners if they give extra benefits to the pensioners who need them most.

Mrs. Margaret Beckett: We should have had a roll of drums when the Minister rose to speak today. Increasingly, the uprating statement serves the function of a magician's cloak. It is flashed before our wondering eyes, as the Minister makes dramatic gestures and mumbles incomprehensible incantations in which a few mystical words can be heard—words like "targeting" and "dependency". His Back Benchers, who know precisely when to cheer, although perhaps not precisely what to cheer, give tongue. Then, with a confident smirk, the magician finally whisks away his cloak. The stage is empty; the great illusion is complete; the welfare state has quietly disappeared and the amazed members of the audience turn to each other and say, "How did he do that? I did not see it go." [HON. MEMBERS: "Here he comes."] I welcome the Minister of State back to the Chamber.
We are here to puncture the great illusion and to tell the House how the trick is done, and before it is completely finished. Like many tricks, it requires the audience to suspend their disbelief. Let us begin by dispensing with the idea that we misunderstand the extent of the Government's generosity. We understand it only too well. We understand that the Government follow assiduously in the footsteps of their famous supporter, Jeffrey Archer, who wrote "Not a Penny More, Not a Penny Less."
The Government who tell us that they have lavished £1,800 million on increased national insurance benefits—although only £1,500 million is in increased benefits and not for increased numbers—are the same Government who made a profit last year of £3,000 million from national insurance contributions. That was money raised in contributions—some hon. Members have drawn attention to this—over and above that paid out in increased national insurance benefit. Twice as much money went to the Treasury as went into the pockets of pensioners, widows or the sick. Moreover, the same Government will clear a further £2,000 million and more this year from increased


national insurance contributions—almost £1,000 million more than they will pay in national insurance benefit increases. That is quite apart from the running total of about £6,000 million that they clear every year because of the break of the link between pensions and earnings.
We are talking not about an increase but about a redistribution of benefits, and many of those benefits are frozen. Sadly, the majority of Conservative Back Benchers—there are some most honourable exceptions—applaud the second freezing of child benefit in cash terms because the benefit goes to the wealthy. We know, however, that they are the same Back Benchers who cheered and waved their Order Papers when the Government gave £4,000 million almost exclusively to the wealthy in the Budget.
The hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mrs. Shephard) referred to the extra £200 million on child benefit as a universal perk. With great respect, I remind her that she and her hon. Friends voted for inheritance reliefs in the Budget for just 2,000 already wealthy people. That was not a universal perk but it was a perk that was rather well worth having. Does the hon. Lady really believe that that money is better going to those 2,000 people than to 12 million children? Today, I read in the press that top management salaries have increased by 30 per cent. this year. Will those who object so strongly to such people getting £7·25 a week in child benefit have anything to say about them getting £500 a week in extra salary? I very much doubt it.
I have not the slightest doubt that the Conservative Back Benchers who call for the means-testing of child benefit would applaud means-testing of the basic pension, the Christmas bonus or any other benefits for pensioners, with the same enthusiasm and for the same reasons. They object to universal benefits, clawed back in tax from those who do not need them, because they tie up resources which, freed to pay for tax cuts, could be targeted exclusively to their friends and supporters.
In July 1980 we were told the Government intended to uprate child benefit each year to maintain its value. In 1984, the then Secretary of State drew attention to what he called the need for "rough equality of treatment" between tax allowances and child benefit. It has become very rough indeed. As my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) pointed out, child benefit has fallen by 7 per cent. in real terms since 1979, while tax allowances have substantially increased.
Child benefit remains the best way of lifting families out of the poverty trap. Increases in means-tested benefits trap more families into dependence. As always, when cuts are made, it is the poor who get £70 million of the savings in child benefit while the Treasury pockets twice as much.
Child benefit is not the only indicator of the Government's long-term intentions. The Chancellor was kind enough a few weeks ago to draw our attention to the difference between pledged benefits, which are at least frozen in real terms and stand still in line with prices, and unpledged benefits which, like child benefit, can be frozen in cash terms without changing the law.
The widows' payment is now worth almost £600 less than the uprated benefit it replaced, and it is frozen again this year. The lone parent premium on housing benefit is frozen. The earnings rule for pensioners—I am sure that Conservative Members remember that the Government

were going to abolish it in 1979—has been frozen. The earnings rule for the spouses of the retired or disabled has been frozen as has that for carers. The occupational pension level that wipes out entitlements to unemployment benefit has been frozen. The hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) mentioned the need for incentives, but all the earnings disregards have been frozen.
The maternity payment from the social fund, specifically targeted only on the poorest mothers, was first cut in half, as compared with what the poorest used to get, and was then frozen at £85—£85 to meet the whole cost of having a child, for which two years ago a mother in the same circumstances could have obtained perhaps £180. Not a penny more is available in supplementary grants. Most of the benefits that I have cited are not just frozen this year; they have been frozen for five years or so, representing a steady erosion of their value.
The poorest unemployed—those on income support—have had their living standards cut. That is especially true of those who are childless because their basic benefit has not even been increased in line with inflation, as the Government admit.
Those whom the law does protect—the pensioners—have had their staple income frozen in real terms. They are standing still at best, while those in work forge ahead. The House should consider the long-term impact of that standstill, and I pay tribute to those Conservative Members who have begun to do that. If the pension of 1948 had been uprated only in line with prices, the basic pension today would be just over £18 a week for a single person and nearly £33 a week for a couple. That is less than half the basic pension today, and 2·3 million get only that basic pension. On average, a single pensioner spends about £15 a week on food—hardly an extravagant figure—so pensioners would have about £3 left for fuel and all other expenses if previous Governments had pursued this Government's policy.
We know that the Government prefer to talk only about pensioners with extra savings or extra pensions, which we welcome and applaud and which we did much to foster. But the Government are steadily whittling away the foundation of retirement incomes—the basic pension. The Minister accused us of being obsessed with the basic pension, but it is the Government who described the basic pension as the "main source" of income for most pensioners. The 30, 40 and 50-year-olds who put money aside for extra independence in retirement are putting back what the Government are taking away. They are running to stand still.
We can guess what the Minister will say: he will say that we exaggerate. He will say that we are mean-spirited not to welcome the extra money going into benefit. He will gloss over, if he mentions at all, the fact that the Treasury pocketed twice as much in national insurance contributions as the Government paid out in increased national insurance benefits.
As we are talking about the Government's generosity, let me remind the Minister of an answer that he gave me on 15 November. I asked him just how much of the real increase in social security expenditure since 1979 was due to benefit upratings in excess of pricing increases. Of the nine years, he was able to identify three in which such increases had taken place. In 1980, supplementary benefit child scale rates were amalgamated and the uprating exceeded inflation by about £3—a sum that I accept was worth having. In 1981, mobility allowance went up by a


princely 70p and in 1983 one-parent benefit went up by 25 whole pence more than the increase in prices. The Government have increased benefits by more than the rise in prices only three times in nine years.
I have no doubt that the Under-Secretary of State will tell us that, although the Chancellor of the Exchequer claims that we are more prosperous and successful than ever, that prosperity cannot be shared with pensioners, the low-paid, widows, the sick and the unemployed without it being imperilled. He will deploy all the clever phrases devised by a Government who can cut housing benefit transitional protection of £2·50 by ·2 and call it an erosion factor. But he and the Government know that this uprating statement is just another swirl of the magician's cloak and that backstage the demolition men are hard at work.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lloyd): This combined debate on uprating and re-rating has enabled hon. Members to raise a wide range of issues, but it has left me little time to respond to each point.
Before I mention some of the general points that have been made I wish to re-emphasise the Government's impressive record. Since 1979 spending on social security has risen by one third in real terms. That is not magic, as the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) described it. She wrapped herself in the magician's cloak instead of examining the figures in detail. That figure includes a 24 per cent. increase in spending on the elderly and a 90 per cent. increase in spending on the sick and disabled. Of course, a considerable amount of that is explained by the fact that the benefits go wider—more people are receiving them. But they must be paid for, and they can he paid for only by a successful economy. Those impressive figures mean that more people are being helped, and many of them are being helped much more than they were under the Labour Government. Spending next year will increase by 7 per cent. over this year, so we are continuing to find additional resources. But we are determined to ensure that the extra money goes where it is most needed.
We have honoured our pledge to maintain the real value of pensions. I acknowledge that we have not linked them with earnings, as the Labour Government did, but on two out of five occasions the Labour Government fell down on their pledge. We want to make a pledge that we can honour. The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) was right to say that there was a 20 per cent. increase in state pensions under the Labour Government—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I hope that he and his colleagues who are cheering will be equally frank and admit that under this Government pensioner incomes have increased by 23 per cent.—an increase of 3 per cent. a year since 1979 as compared with 0·6 per cent. a year under Labour. It is clear from the figures that it is much better to be a pensioner under this Government than it was under the Labour Government.
Furthermore, there are fewer pensioners on low incomes. In 1979, 38 per cent. of pensioners were in the bottom 20 per cent. of incomes. By 1986, the proportion had dropped to 24 per cent. A statistic that will interest the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) is that for pensioners' incomes compared with

average earnings. In 1974, the figure was 55 per cent., in 1979 it had dropped to 53 per cent. and in 1986 it rose to 60 per cent.

Mr. Kirkwood: Will the Minister give figures for the proportion of average male earnings for those years?

Mr. Lloyd: That was the figure for average earnings. The Conservative Government have introduced the pensioner premium on income support, and next October we shall add £2·50 and £3·50 to the pensioner premium for older pensioners and the disabled.
The Opposition pour scorn on family credit as a targeted benefit, but their scorn is somewhat premature. Although the case load—260,000—is less than we had forecast, spending is up to forecast. We had intended to spend about £400 million. It is clear that the benefit is better targeted than we envisaged.
The figures show that the benefit reaches even more of the less well-off than we had hoped. We want to do even better. We are to have a take-up campaign on television because the benefit is not well enough known; it has not had enough time to establish itself fully. It will take a little longer than it should because the Opposition, instead of promoting it, have consistently decried it.

Mr. Robin Cook: The Minister has said it will take a little longer to reach the target. When do the Government expect to hit the target that they promised of 60 per cent. and 470,000 claimants?

Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman knows that I cannot predict the future, but I can tell him that we are on target with the amount of money paid out. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will take pleasure in that. it means that the money is reaching families who need it. I should have hoped that the hon. Gentleman would be sufficiently generous to show some satisfaction at that fact.
The Opposition have worked up considerable indignation about the freezing of child benefit. One would hardly credit it that the Labour Secretary of State who introduced child benefit in 1975, Mrs. Barbara Castle, emphatically did not plan for an annual uprating. She believed that consideration should be given each year to whether the money was best spent in that way or another. That is precisely what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has done. But we have not just left the matter there. We have transferred much of that money to those on lower incomes who need the help.
It is worth putting on record the fact that, on income support, the child rate for those aged under 11 has been increased by 9·3 per cent., for 11 to 15-year-olds by 7·8 per cent. and for 16 and 17-year-olds by 7·2 per cent. On family credit, child payments for under 11-year olds have been increased by 20·7 per cent., for 11 to 15-year-olds by 13·2 per cent. and for 16 to 17-year-olds by 11·2 per cent. That is additional money far above the rate of inflation which goes to the families who need it most. It is churlish of Opposition Members, who jeered the poor targeting of those benefits, not to express some satisfaction that this extra help is going where it is most needed.
Unlike those on income support, people at the family credit level have benefited from the high wage increases and tax reductions of the past year. I am amazed that the Opposition even considered voting against a measure that produces extra help for low-income families so as to enable


45p to be distributed each week to families well up the income scale who have done well from the tax reductions that the Opposition criticised.
There are several more points that I would wish to raise, but clearly there is not time to do so. These upratings bring the social security budget to well over £50 billion. They reflect the success of the Government's economic policies and their determination to use the extra resources that they have generated where they are most needed. We have fulfilled our promises to pensioners and others who receive long-term benefit, and we have also provided extra and welcome help to those families on low incomes. I commend both orders to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Social Security (Contributions and Allocation of Contributions) (Re-rating) Order 1988, which was laid before this House on 7th December, be approved.

It being Seven o'clock, MR. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to order [16 December], to put forthwith the Question on the remaining motion relating to social security.

Question agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 1988, which was laid before this House on 7th December, be approved.—[Mr. Alan Howarth.]

Select Committee on Scottish Affairs

Mr. Speaker: I repeat what I said earlier. I have selected all the amendments on the Order Paper.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In the light of the discussions that took place earlier, will you summon to the House the Chairman of the Committee of Selection to tell us whether he expects an early debate on the recommendations? That would help all of us who wish to participate in the debate.

Mr. Speaker: That is not within my authority.

7 pm

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): I beg to move,
That this House recognises the inability of the Committee of Selection to nominate Members to serve on the Scottish Affairs Committee in accordance with Standing Order No. 104(2); welcomes the continued scrutiny of the Scottish Office by the Committee of Public Accounts, and the extent to which other select committees have been and will continue to be able within their orders of reference to take evidence from the Scottish Office and associated public bodies on matters arising in Scotland, and to report thereon; and notes that other Parliamentary means exist for the consideration of Scottish affairs, including the Scottish Grand Committee, particularly in its consideration of Matters relating to Scotland and Estimates for which the Secretary of State for Scotland is responsible.
As the House appreciates, a long and tortuous process has brought us to the motion today. If it is passed, it will endorse the Committee of Selection's view that, despite Standing Order No. 130, there is no generally acceptable basis on which to nominate a Scottish Affairs Select Committee. When we began negotiations through the usual channels about setting up this Select Committee we realised that there could be difficulties. I hoped that the discussions would bring us to a solution. However, the only commonly shared point of view about the Committee is that there should be a debate about it.
The Committee of Selection is formally responsible, under Standing Orders, for acting on behalf of the House in nominating members for all departmental Select Committees. That was a deliberate decision of the House when the departmental Select Committee system was set up in 1979, and it followed a recommendation of the Procedure Committee.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox) and his colleagues on the Committee for the way in which they carry out their duties. My hon. Friend may seek to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, to explain how the Committee set about its task on this occasion.
As the House will recall, the usual channels have also been involved in discussions about the Scottish Affairs Select Committee—not to make nominations, but in support of the Committee of Selection by seeking to find a generally acceptable basis on which names could be put forward. That is what I have been trying to achieve. It was unfortunate, but not unprecedented, that it was not possible to do so. Between 1972 and 1979, the Scottish Affairs Select Committee lapsed after some years of activity. For most of that period the Opposition were in government. They did not set up the Committee, despite the fact that fundamental issues relating to Scotland were being discussed at that time.

Mr. Robert Hughes: On what basis is the Leader of the House saying that the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs lapsed? There were two Select Committees, which were not running concurrently from one Session to another. There was one in the 1960s dealing with Scottish steel and one in 1972 and 1973 dealing with Scottish land use. To say that the Committee lapsed is wrong. There were two such Committees.

Mr. Wakeham: No Select Committee on Scottish Affairs was set up between 1972 and 1979.
Given how long the discussions continued, the House will, I hope, find it useful if I remind hon. Members briefly of their course. At the outset, it was agreed through the usual channels that the size of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs should be reduced from the maximum provided for by Standing Orders—from 13 to nine. That was in order to maintain the convention that there should be a Government majority on the Committee and to enable that majority to be made up of hon. Members representing Scottish seats only.
On 12 November last, the Committee of Selection accordingly tabled a motion nominating the Conservative and minor party members on that basis. The names of the Labour Committee members were not available at that stage. They were added on 19 November. The Chairman of the Committee of Selection, my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley, then received a letter from my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) saying that he was not willing to serve on the Committee. Standing Order No. 104 says that a Member making a nomination shall try to ascertain whether each Member nominated
will give his attendance on the committee".
Following receipt of my hon. Friend's letter, the Committee of Selection amended its motion to remove his name, leaving just eight. The choice facing the Committee of Selection was to set up a Committee which did not reflect the Government's majority in the House or to nominate at least one of my hon. Friends representing a non-Scottish seat.
In any event, the Committee agreed a special report on 9 December which said that it found itself unable to nominate a Scottish Affairs Select Committee which in its opinion would have the support of the House and that it proposed to take no further action on the matter unless instructed by the House to do so.
Following a debate on 13 January, a motion to take note of the special report was approved by 198 votes to 160. Only during that debate, particularly during the encouraging and flexible speech of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), did it become apparent that both sides of the House recognised and accepted the unitary nature of our Parliament and that there might be an agreed basis on which to nominate a Select Committee, the members of which did not represent exclusively Scottish constituencies.

Mr. Jim Sillars: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why he argues in that way in respect of a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, which is purely investigatory and not part of the legislative process, but accepts exclusively Scottish Members on the Scottish Grand Committee which is part of the legislative process? Are we not simply listening to humbug from the right hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Wakeham: I am discussing the position as it is. I shall discuss many points during my speech and I hope that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) will understand my position better when I have finished.
I was referring to the flexible speech made by the hon. Member for Garscadden in the debate on 13 January. It seemed that there might be an agreed basis upon which we could nominate a Select Committee, the members of which did not represent exclusively Scottish constituencies. There were further discussions through the usual channels and I wrote to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley on 10 March saying that I believed that progress could be made in setting up the Committee.
Events took a further turn when, on 21 April, my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley replied to me saying that he had reported to the Committee of Selection that he had been unable to find any colleague representing a Scottish constituency who was willing to serve on the Scottish Affairs Select Committee. The Committee of Selection had agreed that he should inform me that in its view it was unable to make progress.
Notwithstanding that, I had further discussions with my right hon. and hon. Friends representing Scottish constituencies to find out why they were not prepared to serve and to see whether there might be a way of meeting their concerns. I was told that because of their consistent attendance at Standing Committees considering Scottish legislation, in addition to their other duties in the House, they did not believe that they could give sufficient time to the work of a Select Committee. In the light of that—[Interruption.] The House should be reminded of the events.
In the light of that, I considered whether there was any scope for flexibility in the work of the Scottish Standing Committee so that my right hon. and hon. Friends might be readier to undertake Select Committee work. Therefore, I set out a proposal in two parts, which on 19 May, during business questions, I outlined in response to a question from the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson).
The first part of my proposal was that the Committee should include some Members for English constituencies but that there should also be a place on the Committee for both the Social and Liberal Democrats and the Scottish National party. The second part of my proposal was that there should be greater flexibility over the minimum number of Members for Scottish constituencies who would be required to serve on a Scottish Standing Committee.
I am sorry to say that this two-part proposal was not acceptable to the main Opposition party. After I had held further discussions with my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley, the Committee of Selection agreed on 29 June a further special report. The report said that the Committee had concluded that there was no generally acceptable basis for names to be produced to complete nominations to the Scottish Select Committee.

Mr. James Wallace: I remind the Leader of the House that on the morning after the last general election his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland commented on the results in Scotland and said that it would be business as usual; the fact that there were only 10 Conservative Members with Scottish constituencies made no difference. It is quite clear


that this is not business as usual. What has happened? Has the Secretary of State for Scotland been unable to deliver business as usual?

Mr. Wakeham: The Government's legislative programme for Scotland is going extremely well. The Scottish Office is performing very well indeed in the interests of Scotland, so it is business as usual.
It will be clear from this account that some of the difficulties have arisen because the positions of various participants in these discussions have changed at different times. I make no complaint about that. Hon. Members are perfectly entitled to change their minds, in the same way as anybody else, but it has meant that the opportunities that may have existed at certain times to set up the Committee have been missed. I regret that, but I accept the position.
The three amendments to the original motion still seek to set up the Select Committee. The essence of both the official Opposition and the Scottish National party. amendments is that they call on the Committee of Selection to nominate the Select Committee without giving it any unequivocal guidance on how it should do that. The amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) and his colleagues instructs the Committee of Selection to nominate the Select Committee on the basis, roughly, of the proportion of the popular vote gained by each party in Scotland. I disagree with all three amendments.

Mr. Alex Salmond: Is it more important, in the opinion of the Leader of the House, for the Select Committee to obey the convention that the Select Committee should reflect the composition of the whole House, or for us to obey Standing Order No. 130, which says that a Select Committee "shall" be established?

Mr. Wakeham: I believe that the Select Committee should be set up in accordance with the generally acceptable conventions of the House. I should have welcomed the fact that it had been set up.
However, let me deal with Standing Orders. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman realises that this debate is not being held in accordance with Standing Orders. The debate that ended at 7 o'clock was not held in accordance with Standing Orders. The debate that we are to have on Thursday will not be in accordance with Standing Orders. The House has resolved to deal otherwise with these matters. It is a total non-point to say that the House must set up a Select Committee in accordance with Standing Order No. 130, if the House resolves to do something else. That is the purpose of my motion. All the business of the House is in accordance with Standing Orders unless the House resolves to do something different. My motion recognises that it is not possible to comply with Standing Order No. 130. If the House approves it, my motion will be perfectly in order.
The Social and Liberal Democrats' amendment would result in a Committee that would not reflect the Government's majority, as the other Select Committees do, in this unitary Parliament. That basic convention was agreed at the start of the discussions and I do not believe that we should reject it now.
The other two amendments seem to me to place the Committee of Selection in the position either of nominating my right hon. and hon. Friends for Scottish

constituencies, regardless of their refusal to serve, or of nominating colleagues on this side of the House exclusively from non-Scottish constituencies. I do not believe that the House would find either course acceptable.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: The Leader of the House is giving us a history lesson or a catalogue of failures by the usual channels. May I ask him to clarify what he said earlier? Is he saying that Standing Orders do not really matter—that when it suits the Government they want them but if it does not suit the Government they forget them? What are Standing Orders for? There are rules for conducting our business.

Mr. Wakeham: I am sure that this is not the place for me to give a tutorial on the workings of the House of Commons, but I am very willing to try. The Standing Orders of the House are the basis on which the House proceeds unless the House resolves to do something different. The House is continually resolving to do something different—sometimes at the Opposition's request. For example, the debate that terminated at 7 o'clock was for the benefit of the Opposition, as a result of discussions through the usual channels. This debate is not in accordance with Standing Orders. Therefore, Mr. Speaker kindly said that he had selected the three amendments that have been set down for debate. Had the Standing Orders of the House not been varied, that would probably not have been possible. Standing Orders are the basis on which we proceed unless we resolve to do something different.
The proposals of the official Opposition and the Scottish National party are unacceptable for two reasons. The first proposal would introduce press-ganging into our procedures for nominating Select Committees. The second, strictly non-Scottish option, although correct in procedural terms, goes against our traditions, both by providing that a majority of Members in a Committee dealing with Scottish affairs should come from non-Scottish seats and by its failure to contain a representative for a Scottish seat from the party in government.
Even if the official Opposition and the Scottish National party claim today that they would agree to the last course, I think that the House would be well advised to be cautious. The acceptance by the Scottish National party of the principle of a unitary Parliament has consistently been uncertain, to say the least. Although the official Opposition have said for some months that they accept the principle that this is a unitary Parliament, they still complain when Members for English constituencies take part in Scottish Question Time. Whatever their reasons, having considered the options, the Committee of Selection advised the House that in the circumstances it could find no generally acceptable basis on which to complete nominations to the Committee. For the reasons I have given, I share its conclusion.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Is the Leader of the House not prepared to accept that the purpose of Select Committees is to ensure that major Departments of state are brought to account before the House for their actions? Is he saying that when the Government decide that it is not convenient for a matter to be brought to the attention of the House it will not happen? What will happen when that principle is extended to other Departments?

Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman has intervened at precisely the right moment in my speech. In the first part of my speech I have sought to suggest that it is for the Government to determine whether there is a generally acceptable basis for setting up the Select Committee, and it is for the House to decide whether to support my motion. The hon. Gentleman is quite right about the scrutiny of the work of the Scottish Office by Select Committees. The work of the Scottish Office continues to be the subject of inquiries by Select Committees.
The Public Accounts Committee has carried out five inquiries to which the Scottish Office gave evidence. They include a review of Scottish new towns, the report of the Scottish Development Agency on the private sector, a report on financial support for the fishing industry and, most recently, a report on the quality of clinical care in the National Health Service.
Scottish Office officials and Ministers have given evidence to a number of departmental Select Committees, including the Select Committee on Agriculture, the Select Committee on Transport and the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee. The House will recall that the report of the Select Committee on Energy on the privatisation of electricity which we debated on the Second Reading of the Electricity Bill last week contained recommendations directly concerned with privatisation in Scotland.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: The Leader of the House must accept that the argument that he is propounding is not good enough. It is not sufficient to suggest that other Select Committees can examine Scottish affairs in detail. The Department of Energy, in its report on privatisation, stated that it could not look in sufficient detail at the Scottish dimension which merited a separate report. It is just not good enough. The Minister is using an argument that would apply to every other Department. Why should Scotland be singled out as different?

Mr. Wakeham: I do not understand why the hon. Lady is quarrelling with me. I share her regret that it is not possible to set up the Select Committee. I am pointing out to the House that the Scottish Office is still subject to considerable scrutiny by Select Committees of the House.

Mr. Dick Douglas: The Leader of the House is being uncharacteristically disingenuous. Does he accept that, although there is a Select Committee on Defence, there are numerous overlapping reports of the Public Accounts Committee on defence matters? His argument is an argument for having no Select Committee on Defence and for abolishing all other specialised Select Committees. It is nonsense and he should know better.

Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman has got it wrong. I regret that it is not possible to set up a Scottish Affairs Select Committee, but I am pointing out that it is possible for other Select Committees to scrutinise the work of the Scottish Office. If the hon. Gentleman reflects for a minute he will realise that what I am saying is correct.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: Will the Leader of the House give us his opinion about whether the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs would be competent to look into the affairs of the Scottish Office in view of the fact that the Government are increasingly treating Scotland as a colony?

Mr. Wakeham: That is not a matter for me. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is still a member of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, but he had better discuss that with his colleagues if he considers it a sensible way to proceed.
Since it is not any part of the Government's position to seek to limit Select Committee inquiries into Scottish matters, we welcome the fact that the Scottish Office continues to be the subject of scrutiny by hon. Members in Select Committees. We are also using the other parliamentary ways in which Scottish matters can be addressed by the House as they have been for many years, for example, by considering Scottish Estimates in the Scottish Grand Committee.
Hon. Members have suggested that, in recognising that it is not possible to find a generally acceptable way for nominating a Scottish Affairs Select Committee, we are contravening Standing Order No. 130 which states that such a Select Committee shall be appointed. But Standing Orders are a creation of the House, and are made for the House. It is not the other way around. As I have already said, it is commonplace to agree to motions varying the Standing Orders where that is for the general convenience in arranging business. For example, at the beginning of this Session, the House approved without debate or Division a motion varying the arrangements in Standing Order No. 13 for private Members' time. There is nothing new or revolutionary in the House determining that on a specific matter we should proceed differently from the way set out in Standing Orders.
We should reflect very carefully on the question of ordering hon. Members to serve on Select Committees so that Standing Orders may be fulfilled. Certainly the House has the power to do so, but I do not believe that it would wish to use it. Generally each hon. Member can decide for himself how he carries out his parliamentary duties. The House will consider it only fair that my right hon. and hon. Friends representing Scottish seats should have the same rights as other hon. Members. I, regret their unwillingness to serve on the Select Committee, but I respect it. No doubt one or more of them will seek to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, later in the debate. The House may also wish to reflect on the harm it would do to the reputation of our Select Committees if they were made up of hon. Members who had been dragooned into serving on them.

Mr. Alistair Darling: Will the Leader of the House reflect on the irony that we are talking about press-ganging and ordering when the Government Whips have no difficulty in getting hon. Members with no great interest in Scottish affairs to attend Scottish Question Time and other occasions such as this debate, yet those hon. Members are not interested in the hard work of scrutinising the Scottish Office? The Leader of the House cannot talk about press-ganging—[Interruption.j

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Leader of the House.

Mr. Wakeham: If the hon. Gentleman's example of dragooning and bullying in the Government Whips' Office is reflected on his side of the House, it has not been very successful recently. I can assure him that that does not happen in the Government Whips' Office.

Sir John Stokes: I wish to inform my right hon. Friend that I am here because I want to be here and not because any Whip asked me to be here.

Mr. Wakeham: If I may say so in the House of Commons in this unitary Parliament, we are delighted to see my hon. Friend here.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Does my hon. Friend remember when he was Patronage Secretary? Will he remind the House how many Scottish Labour Members stopped people in England having the right to shop on Sundays and prevented us from changing our absurd Sunday trading laws which they do not have to put up with in Scotland?

Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend tempts me but I shall not follow that route.

Mr. David Steel: Before the Leader of the House concludes, does he recognise that he is embarking on a profoundly undemocratic argument? He is saying that because Conservative Members decline to serve they have a right to veto the Select Committee over the majority of elected Members representing Scotland who have a duty to scrutinise the work of the Government.

Mr. Wakeham: I am saying that there is no generally acceptable way. It would be just as farcical for us to set up a Scottish Select Committee if the Labour party refused to serve on it as it would be if Government Members refused to serve on it.
Between 1983 and 1987 I spent quite a lot of time setting up Select Committees. I was most anxious to ensure that they should be set up with representatives from all parts of the House. I remember having debates late at night because there was a strong feeling that Members representing Ulster were not being properly treated and we defeated the nominations of the Committee of Selection. Over the years I have spent a considerable time ensuring that the chairmanships of the Select Committees were allocated on a fair basis between all Members of the House, as the previous Patronage Secretary did.
Therefore, I reiterate that if Opposition parties were not prepared to serve on a Select Committee I cannot see how that Select Committee would be of very much use to the House of Commons.

Dr. John Reid: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Wakeham: No. I have given way very generously all around the House. I have spent more time sitting on my seat than standing up and I must conclude.
The motion reflects the belief that I have said I share with the Committee of Selection that there is no generally acceptable basis on which to nominate a Scottish Affairs Select Committee. Acknowledging that fact does not undermine the Government's support for the departmental Select Committee system. We remain as committed to it as we were when my predecessor invited the House to approve the establishment of departmental Select Committees in 1979. The motion is simply a recognition of the current position and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Frank Dobson: The speech made by the Leader of the House was a travesty and created the impression that everyone was out of step apart from "our Johnnie" and that the poor man had been thwarted at every turn in his efforts to establish a Scottish

Affairs Select Committee. The right hon. Gentleman has done his best to ensure that the Committee has not been established. If he had possessed the political will to establish it, it would have been set up months ago. It is no good him thrashing around trying to blame everyone else; the fault lies with him and his colleagues in the Government.
The democratic decision of the Scottish people reduced the number of Scottish Tory Members of Parliament to a rump of 10 out of 72. No one can deny that that caused the Government problems, such as trying to find Members of ministerial calibre for the Scottish Office. Living evidence of that problem is sitting on the Front Bench tonight. It means that five Scottish Tories were left to serve on the Committee. No one can deny that that caused the Government problems, but there were many possible solutions. One would have been to set up a Select Committee that did not have a majority of Government members but reflected the outcome of the 1987 election in Scotland. We understand that that was rejected by the Prime Minister herself. That having happened, the Labour party quite naturally expected the five Scottish Tory Members of Parliament who were not Ministers to serve on the Committee, but that did not prove to be the case. Apparently they have better things to do than scrutinise the activities of the Scottish Office and monitor the effects of Government policies on the Scottish people.
When we were forced to do so by the Government we reluctantly made it clear that we were prepared to allow Tory Members representing English seats to make up Tory numbers on the Committee, especially as at least 16 of them were born and, in some cases, brought up in Scotland. This was made clear to the Leader of the House in private discussions and by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) and me in the debate on 13 January 1988. Since then, the Leader of the House has made no effort to bring the Committee into being. He keeps asserting, "In a unitary Parliament hon. Members from either side of the House are entitled to serve on any Committee." If that is what he and his colleagues believe, what are they waiting for? They should set up the Committee with hon. Members who are willing to serve on it.
It was preposterous to hear a former Tory Chief Whip speak out against press ganging. The Government have been willing to twist arms, make promises of health spending in constituencies and press any gang to pass some of their policies, yet they will not twist arms to set up the Scottish Affairs Select Committee.
The Government cannot expect us to believe that Tory Members representing English constituencies are not interested in Scotland because the record shows that more than 130 of them have asked oral questions about Scotland or taken part in Scottish debates. A number of them do so quite regularly, so why does not the Leader of the House ask some of them to serve on the Committee in addition to any Scottish Tory Members who are willing to do so? The answer is that he and the rest of the Cabinet do not want a Scottish Affairs Select Committee, which would take embarrasing evidence even though its Tory majority might prevent it from producing embarrassing or damaging reports. Such a Committee could be highly inconvenient to the Government—an inconvenience that they do not want.
The Scottish Office is a major Department of state. Like other Departments, its activities should be scrutinised


continually and systematically by a departmental Select Committee; no other arrangements will be able to do that job properly. The Leader of the House suggested that the Public Accounts Committee and the Scottish Grand Committee could deal with these issues, but that was rejected in 1978 by the Select Committee on Procedure, which recommended the establishment of departmental Select Committees. It said that we should
no longer rest content with an incomplete and unsystematic scrutiny of the activities of the Executive merely as a result of historical accident or sporadic pressures.
The Government are proposing just that—a historical accident in response to sporadic pressures from Scottish Tory Members.

Mr. David Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government's proposals are practical nonsense? In my role as Chairman of the Transport Select Committee, I am only too well aware of Committees' heavy work load. No matter how well meaning the Committees may be, they will be unable to deal with Scottish affairs, nor should they. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is a scandalous ploy to prevent disastrous Scottish Ministers from being further exposed to Select Committee scrutiny?

Mr. Dobson: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Many Select Committees do not possess a single Scottish hon. Member, so no local knowledge will be fed into the Committee's scrutiny.
The debate is not about obscure aspects of parliamentary procedure but goes to the heart of the exercise of power in a democratic society—the concept of government by consent. The Government are proposing to use their majority to set aside obligations that have become inconvenient. For years, Tories have ignored or, worse still, obstructed the wish of Scottish people for a devolved form of government that will be seen to reflect more quickly and closely their needs and desires as democratically expressed in the ballot box. Not content with that, the Government are proposing to do away with existing arrangements designed to secure that at least the Scottish Office must reflect the concerns of those whom the Scottish people have elected.
I urge everyone in the House to treat what is happening tonight with the utmost seriousness. The parliamentary system will be brought into disrepute if we allow the Government to get away with what they propose, which is fraudulent, deceitful and dangerous. It is fraudulent because before the 1979 election the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor), told the Scottish people that the Tories would come up with their own devolution proposals and that in the meantime a Scottish Select Committee would be set up.
After the election and the repeal of the Scotland Act 1978, and following pressure from the Labour party, the Scottish Affairs Select Committee was set up in parallel with other departmental Select Committees. In the words of the then Secretary of State for Scotland, the present Secretary of State for Defence, it would act
as an effective watchdog on the programme and policies of the Scottish Office.
What price that watchdog now?
At the time of the devolution referendum, the present Secretary of State for Scotland was so dissatisfied with arrangements for the government of Scotland that he

campaigned in favour of the Labour party's proposal for a Scottish assembly. After the 1979 election, in the debate on the repeal of the Scotland Act—he can turn about face pretty quickly—he commended improvements in the Select Committee system as making a
major contribution towards improving the government of Scotland.
Surely he is not now saying that not setting up the Select Committee will make a major contributon to improving the government of Scotland.
After the 1987 election, despite the few Scottish Tory Members, the Secretary of State said that it would be "business as usual." Opposition Members are saying that part of the usual business is the Scottish Affairs Select Committee.

Mr. John Redwood: Will the hon. Gentleman remind the House of what proposals the Labour party now favours for devolved government in Scotland? How many seats should be removed to facilitate that?

Mr. Dobson: That cretinous interruption came from someone who is supposed to be one of the leading intellectuals in the Tory party.
For a year now, we in the Labour party have been pressing for the establishment of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. It is important to the people of Scotland and to their elected representatives, but it is just as important to those from other parts of Britain who believe in democratic institutions.
The Government propose to set aside the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs because it is politically inconvenient. It might cause embarrassment by, say, investigating the workings of the poll tax in Scotland—we agree that that would be embarrassing—but one of the most important functions of a freely elected Parliament is to be just that—an inconvenience to the Government. That is what we are here for. If the Government get away with swallowing up one inconvenient Select Committee, they will soon develop an appetite for Select Committees and swallow up others.
Tonight we see the naked use of power for the short-term party political advantage of the Tory party. The Government have taken Lord Hailsham's words about an elective dictatorship not as a warning but as a model. Such attitudes are dangerous in any circumstances, but they are doubly dangerous when they involve disdainful treatment of the elected representatives of the Scottish people who already feel badly and distantly governed.
Any Government—in particular, a Government led by a woman—should remember the words of Sylvia Pankhurst, "Coercion is not Government". Increasingly the people of Scotland feel coerced rather than governed. I remind the Government that it is the duty of all democratic Governments to carry the people with them. More important, I remind all hon. Members that it is the duty of all freely elected Parliaments to fashion instruments which control Governments, subject them to public scrutiny, and ensure that the voices of all citizens are heard and heeded. Whatever its shortcomings, the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs is one of those instruments. That is why Opposition Members would be failing in their most fundamental duty not only to the people of Scotland but to all our fellow citizens if we did not resist the Government's motion.

Mr. Bill Walker: The House will not be surprised to note that I am speaking in this debate. I was interested in what the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) said. He said that the practices that are being put forward are fraudulent, deceitful and dangerous. There was nothing fraudulent, deceitful or dangerous about the letter that I wrote in 1985 about the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. I clearly wrote out my views at the time, and they have not changed since then. The hon. Gentleman said also that a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs would be inconvenient to the Government. In some quarters, my actions since 1985 would be construed as being inconvenient to the Government. Without any doubt, over a long period, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has attempted to establish the Committee. His motion is a recognition of the facts that we face.
As my right hon. Friend said, this is not the first time that a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs has not been set up. There does not appear to be any record of why the Committee was not set up in the 1972 period, other than that it was difficult to find hon. Members who were willing to serve on it. It is interesting to note that that occurred with hardly any parliamentary comment.

Mr. Sillars: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman to give wrong information to the House? I served on a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs in 1972.

Mr. Speaker: Provided that it is in order, I cannot be responsible for what the hon. Member is saying.

Mr. Walker: If the hon. Gentleman were a little less impetuous, he would have noted that I was talking about 1972–73, when he did not serve.

Mr. Sillars: The hon. Gentleman should do his homework.

Mr. Walker: I have done my homework. The hon. Gentleman will be interested to see what homework I have done and what information I have.
I was one of those who, in 1979, desperately wanted a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs to scrutinise the Government and to do its job effectively and properly. I was one of the most disappointed hon. Members when I found that the Committee was not conducting itself in a manner that would be beneficial to Scotland. My remarks do not reflect on the early stages of the Committee. The hon. Members for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) and for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) were Chairmen of that Committee. It was a good, effective Committee, and I was proud to be a member of it. I am sorry to say that it did not continue in that vein.
It is interesting to note that, over the period 1979–80 to 1986–87, the Committee submitted 14 reports to the Scottish Office. Any Committee that prepares reports has a right to expect the Government to take note of them and, if required, to take action. Sadly, Committees that present reports that do not reflect the evidence that they received can expect scant attention from Ministers. That was my view in 1985, and it is still my view this evening.
Hon. Members hear a lot from the Scottish National party. In the period from 1979 to 1987, the Scottish

National party refused to serve on the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. On 26 November 1979, the SNP was given the offer to serve. The record states:
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Harrison) has given the House his explanation. I spoke to the Leader of the SNP, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan). Every opportunity was given to the SNP to have a Member on the Scottish Select Committee. Apparently it did not wish to have one."—[Official Report, 26 November 1979; Vol. 974, c. 1059.]

Mr. Robert Hughes: The Government still went ahead and appointed the Select Committee, despite the objection to serve. Perhaps we should do that on this occasion.

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman is aware that I was talking about one possible member of the SNP. The point that I was making was one of principle rather than practice. If SNP Members —it reflects the humbug that we get from them—believe that the Scottish Affairs Select Committee was and is so important, why was it not important in 1979 and 1983? That is where the humbug is coming from. I do not criticise the hon. Gentleman or his predecessor on the Committee. I would serve tomorrow on a Committee of which either hon. Gentleman was a chairman.

Mr. William McKelvey: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have been a long-established neighbour of the hon. Gentleman. As it has been announced that I was the Chairman-designate of the Select Committee that was to be set up, the hon. Gentleman seems to be implying that he would not serve on any Committee of which I was a chairman.

Mr. Speaker: Let the hon. Member answer that.

Mr. Walker: I regard the hon. Gentleman as one of my friends in the Opposition. Nothing that I say this evening reflects in any way on his integrity. I hope that he will accept that I cannot accept the kind of guarantees that we were supposed to get from the Labour party in the past and that it was unable to deliver. Its inability to deliver guarantees makes me extremely cautious about what is likely to happen. My remarks are no reflection on the hon. Gentleman or his integrity. His integrity has never been in doubt. It is important that we get this into the correct perspective.

Mr. Ian Bruce: My hon. Friend talked of humbug from the Opposition. Does he recall that I was honoured to be called to sit on the Standing Committee on the School Boards (Scotland) Bill and does he remember the reception I had from Opposition Members who now suggest that they welcome Members representing English constituencies with an interest in Scottish matters sitting on Scottish Committees?

Mr. Walker: That was a helpful intervention and later I shall draw the attention of the House to these matters. That is the nub and the hub of everything that we are discussing this evening. Either we accept that this is a unitary Parliament or we do not.
It is important that all hon. Members understand the SNP's position between 1979 and 1987. Neither of the then SNP Members, Gordon Wilson and Donald Stewart, served on any Select Committee of any kind. Neither of those gentlemen attended Standing Committees at anything like the rate of my Scottish colleagues and I. I have all the figures if anyone is interested. Gordon Wilson,


who represented Dundee, East, attended 105 Standing Committees between 1979 and 1983 whereas I attended 228. Donald Stewart, who represented Western Isles, attended 51, fewer than anyone else. In the 1983–87 Parliament, Gordon Wilson had 71 attendances in Standing Committee whereas I had 148 and Donald Stewart had 20. In addition, I attended 79 Select Committee meetings during the 1979–83 Parliament and 64 during the 1983–87 Parliament. Therefore, any SNP Member who suggests that Scottish Conservative Members are not doing their job or pulling their weight is talking humbug and hypocrisy.

Mr. Jimmy Hood: I am interested to hear how busy the hon. Gentleman has been. Certainly he has been busy since 1987. According to the Register of Members' Interests, he has been to Hong Kong and Peking twice, he has spent 18 days in Brazil and six days or more in China. He has three directorships and is an adviser to three other groups. Have not his business interests and gallivanting round the world more to do with his lack of interest in serving on a Scottish Affairs Select Committee and in doing what his Conservative constituents would like him to do, namely, look after the interests of Scottish Conservatives, and, God knows, there are not many of those?

Mr. Walker: That is a stupid and offensive attack. My visits were made during the recess. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] If the hon. Gentleman cares to note the companies which sponsored my visits to these different parts—[Interruption.] It is all on the record. He will see that I was acting in an unpaid capacity to assist them in their sales programme. [Laughter.] I would have thought that all hon. Members should be doing that. If the hon. Gentleman further examines my entry he will find that the advice and help I give to the organisations listed, such as the Scouts, the Air Cadets and the British Gliding Association, is given free. There is no charge.
I now turn to the Labour party—and Opposition Members should stop laughing, They may find that this is not so funny. In 1979 the Labour party had views on the establishment of a Scottish Affairs Select Committee, but those views were not unanimous. Not every Labour Member wanted the Committee to be set up. Willie Hamilton had this to say:
I also have doubts because of the unwarranted assumption that there are in the House— and I measure my words—120 Back Bench Members who will apply themselves diligently to the hard work entailed in serving on Select Committees…it is important to understand that there are reservations among Back Bench Members about the effectiveness of this package."—[Official Report, 25 June 1979; Vol. 969, c. 98.]
The Labour party is constantly reminding the House of the difficulties that we in the Conservative party have in staffing Scottish business of whatever kind. The same Labour Members have no hesitation in becoming involved and active in matters which could be construed as being purely English business.
I am sure that the Water Bill is important and I have no objection to Members from all parts of the United Kingdom taking an interest. That is to be recommended and I am strongly in favour of it. But Opposition Members apparently say one thing when Scottish matters are affected and another when they are not.
[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] At 8.6 pm, as is shown in column 381 of the report of our debate on the Water

Bill, on 7 December, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray) spoke for 10 minutes. He was concerned about the Council for the Protection of Rural England. [Laughter.]
I draw the attention of the House to early-day motions 155, 172 and 191 standing in my name and those of some colleagues on
The Union and the Unitary Parliament.
Scottish Labour Members complain that English and Welsh Conservative Members who table Scottish questions are behaving badly and out of order, yet it is apparently in order for Scottish Labour Members to table questions on Northern Ireland, where the Labour party holds no seats. Early-day motion 172 states clearly that 37 questions were tabled for oral answer by Northern Ireland Ministers and that 27 of the questions were tabled by hon. Members representing English, Welsh and Scottish constituencies.

Mr. Donald Dewar: I am desperate to try to save some time because the hon. Gentleman is tilting at windmills. No Labour Member is suggesting that English Members should not take an interest in the Scottish Affairs Select Committee. We are anxious that they should because we then might get the Committee. As the Secretary of State, with his careful attention to language, will appreciate, we have never argued that English Members with a genuine interest in Scottish affairs should be banned from Scottish questions. This is an important point and I want to get it over to the House. We have made it clear that we object to the clearly orchestrated campaign where hon. Members have been abrasive, provocative and irritating for the sake of it. have no interest in what is going on and when the whole escapade has been conducted like some public school dormitary jape.

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman talks about orchestration. I have been doing a little research and had a lot of research done on the Order Papers for the past two weeks and I can deal effectively with the hon. Gentleman's point. On Tuesday 20 December six Scottish Labour Members had questions tabled to the Department of Education and Science. More important, 12 Scottish Labour Members have questions tabled to the Department of Transport for Monday 16 January and seven of them are fascinated by the Channel tunnel.
If one looks at them carefully, one will see that a number of them are identical in every word. Where is the orchestration? I, frankly, support them in doing that and I am not being critical. I am responding to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, who opened for the Opposition. He mentioned those aspects and I just happened to have the information handy in case he did.
There have been questions recently on North East Shipbuilders. The north-east, of course, is the north-east of England and, quite properly, a number of Scottish Members participated. The hon. Members for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran), for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion), and for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) asked questions.

Mr. John McAllion: rose—

Mr. Walker: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a minute.
I accept that the hon. Member for Dundee, East knows that North East Shipbuilders have an interest in Dundee.


I make no complaint about that. I am merely drawing attention to the fact that, of the three hon. Members who asked questions, the hon. Member for Dundee, East was the only one with a direct interest.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: rose—

Mr. Walker: I shall give way in a moment.
We have heard a lot about what is right and what is wrong. What I would say to Opposition Members is that it is my view that I have achieved more in this Parliament for Scotland, while not serving on the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, than I have achieved in all the months and years that I have spent as a member of that Committee. During this Parliament, with the assistance of Opposition Members, I have been instrumental in placing the Scotch Whisky Act 1988 on the statute book. With the assistance of Opposition Members, I have played a part in saving the search and rescue helicopter flight at Leuchars.

Dr. Godman: rose—

Mr. Walker: I shall give way in a moment as it is important that I finish this point. Also, with the assistance of Opposition Members, I have been instrumental in getting a reprieve for the Dundee dental college. My view is that I have used my time more effectively and efficiently than I could ever have done as a member of a Committee whose reports would not have been considered by the Ministers who received them.

Dr. Godman: With regard to the early-day motion on the North East Shipbuilders, I point out to the hon. Gentleman that I have a direct constituency interest in the continuity of that shipyard, because, if the Government had not betrayed the workers of Sunderland—in that the Ministers prevented that yard from winning an order from Cuba for 10 ships—the engines for those 10 ships would very likely have been built at Clark Kincaid of East Hamilton street, Greenock.

Mr. Walker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that helpful intervention, because it helps me make the point to which I was coming.

Dr. Godman: It is bringing the hon. Gentleman back to the truth.

Mr. Walker: Members on the Government side of the House who represent English constituencies have many direct interests in Scottish constituencies and business. I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman about his involvement in northern England affairs. I wish to encourage that as that is how I see this unitary Parliament functioning and working.
What I find interesting about the debate is that we do not get the same heated interest in Northern Ireland, which there should be if all the factors discussed this evening were agreed. They are not, of course, but if they were, Northern Ireland would have the same case for having a Select Committee on Northern Ireland affairs.
However, we all know that there are differences, which may be part of the problem in the way that we try to run our parliamentary system. This is not the evening when I wish to speak at length on that, because that is not the reason why we are here. I believe that the time is long

overdue for us to talk seriously about how we should run our unitary parliamentary system in all parts of the United Kingdom. If we do not, the danger is that for short-term party political opportunism—I shall not put it any higher than that—a unitary Parliament, and all of us who believe in a unitary parliamentary system, could be at grave risk. We may differ on the solutions, but I believe that it is important that we should get down to serious talking about it instead of constantly flaunting, for short-term political gains, slogans that have nothing to do with the realities of passing legislation through the House, and we should act in a way that is good for the responsible government of Scotland and the United Kingdom.

Mr. Robert Hughes: The motion is a sad one. I regret to say that the Leader of the House presented a very undignified and pathetic figure when he sought to justify it. The motion refers to the Committee of Selection, but we all know that the failure to establish a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs lies with the Leader of the House and the Patronage Secretary. It has nothing to do with the Committee of Selection which, by and large, takes the names offered to it by the Whips. Although I am sure that the Leader of the House, who is in his place, tried hard, the fact is that the failure lies with the Government. I am certain that if the Government had had the will, we could have had a solution.
Much has been said by hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), about the Select Committee system. Some hon. Members say and believe that Select Committees are a distraction which takes hon. Members away from more important work. The hon. Gentleman quoted our old friend Willie Hamilton. Some people believe that the dignity and importance of the Chamber would diminish once a Select Committee was set up. What the hon. Gentleman said was half true, which is the problem with the hon. Gentleman. He makes half true statements. I do not quarrel with the statements quoted from Hansard of my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, as he then was, Mr. Willie Hamilton, who was arguing against the entire Select Committee system. However, he was not arguing that there should not be a committee on Scottish affairs. The hon. Gentleman should not attempt to twist words.
I do not hold the hon. Gentleman's view. I believe that Select Committees are important. I served as a member of the Select Committee in the incarnation of both the Select Committees on Scottish Affairs. First, it was set up specifically to consider land use. I am reminded that in the 1960s there was a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs which considered especially steel. The Select Committee system has a long history. Committees have been sporadic. They have been set up to consider specific matters at different times and then have disappeared. It is not a question of the system lapsing. There never was any continuity until we had the Select Committee system set up by Norman St. John-Stevas, as he then was.
Secondly, I sat on the Select Committee as an ordinary member when it was a regular, growing concern. I was proud—I still am—to have succeeded my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) as Chairman. I found the Committee and its work most useful.


I believe that, while Government Departments in general have been appalling in their responses to the criticisms of Select Committees, the fact is that the Scottish Office has been one of the better Departments of state in responding to the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. Paradoxically, it has often been a minority report of Opposition Back Benchers on the Committee that it has taken up, and has rejected Government Back Benchers' majority reports. The hon. Member for Tayside, North made some sour comments about the Government and the Scottish Office not following the views of the Select Committee. He tried again to twist matters slightly.

Mr. David Lambie: Is it not correct that sometimes the Select Committee took up a subject on representations that it received from Ministers—especially Ministers in the Scottish Office—and sometimes Ministers representing United Kingdom Departments, for example, the Department of Trade and Industry? Therefore, the purpose of the Select Committee was not only to monitor the work of the Scottish Office and Scottish Ministers but was sometimes to give the Secretary of State for Scotland support in the various Cabinet sub-committees when they were taking decisions on the future of certain Scottish affairs.

Mr. Hughes: I am happy to concur. The general view, and sometimes received wisdom, was that the Select Committee was always a bear garden, with everyone fighting with one another, constantly with daggers drawn against the Scottish Office, but that was not true. I do not know why there was a sudden sea change by Scottish Office Ministers towards the idea of a Select Committee. On all the Scottish Select Committees there had always been useful co-operation and discussion between the Government and Chairmen on valuable points.
I accept that the work of the Select Committees appeared, on occasions, to disappear. But even if recommendations are not acted upon, it is important that we get the best information so that we can conduct our political debate. Debating in ignorance does not do democracy any good. Evidence is useful. I do not deny that there have been difficulties. Scottish politics is a vibrant body. It sometimes seems like a cockpit, with all of us trying to scratch one another's eyes out.
Scottish Members are a comparatively small number of Members of Parliament and we constantly meet through television, radio and the press or in the House and have a go at one another— and why not? Scottish politics are probably more adversarial than in other parts of the United Kingdom, and that is a good thing. What is wrong with vigorous debate? Why can we not vigorously debate without personal animosity? Sometimes animosity arises, but this form of politics is good for the system and I do not understand why we cannot continue it. It is said that the vigorous way in which we conduct our democracy makes it difficult to step back and take an objective look in the way that Select Committees are supposed to do. Select Committees were able to do that in the past, without blunting the thrust of their investigations or of questions.
None of the difficulties is insuperable. If the Government had the good will, they should be able to introduce this system. The failure of Conservative Back Benchers in particular, especially those representing Scottish seats, to serve as members of the Committee

shows their lack of self-confidence in themselves and their party. That Scottish Office Ministers are afraid to face questions shows an amazing lack of confidence.
We are told ad nauseam in advertisements on television and in glossy material how good the Government are and what marvellous work they are doing in Scotland. Then we hear the plaintive cry, "What a shame that that is not understood in Scotland." We understand what the Government are doing. There is an excellent set of Scottish Ministers on the Government Front Bench, but we hear the plaintive cry that they are misunderstood and that we do not appreciate their work. We are told that St. Andrew's House is an efficient, tightly run ship. If all that is true, what do Scottish Office Ministers have to hide? Why cannot they allow their actions to be open to public scrutiny? They should be so pleased with themselves that they trample over us trying to get on a Select Committee. Such a system should have been set up long ago. The Government could have provided the Select Committee with the necessary Members.
Leaving aside the dragooning point, I accept that one cannot compel a Member to do anything that he does not want to do. But the Government always find their way when they want something done. There are the blandishments and the offers of knighthoods—there is hope yet for the hon. Member for Tayside, North. The Government could have gone further.
I accept that some of the strident views put in the Scottish press did not help our cause. I was one of those who, from the beginning, was prepared to accept Members from English seats sitting on a Scottish Select Committee. It is important that they should look at what we do and that we should learn from their experience. I do not believe that the Scots have the arrogance to say that everything they do in Scotland is right and that they know better than anyone else. We have much to teach the United Kingdom about politics. That is why we take part in United Kingdom debates. We should not be frightened of English Members—even if they are English rather than Scots representing English seats—serving on a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. I should welcome that because it is important to set up such a Committee.
In an intervention, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) said that the Scottish Grand Committee no longer had added Members on it and was made up only of Scots. During his absence, there was a slight change. A trade-off was made so that the Scottish Grand Committee was composed entirely of Scottish Members but there were to be no votes. That was wrong. We should not rely on the exclusiveness of Scottish Members on the basis of not voting.

Mr. Sillars: Have there been no votes on the Scottish Grand Committee when it has been composed solely of Scottish Members of Parliament?

Mr. Hughes: I recollect that there has been one vote. That was the general deal done, but there is nothing in Standing Orders to say so. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the record, he will find that there have been few votes in the Scottish Grand Committee since it was composed solely of Scottish Members. But that was a minor aside. Scottish exclusivity does not give the whole picture and is not always wholly good.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) will catch your eye, Mr. Speaker. In


private conversations he made a helpful suggestion which he has empowered me to mention. We are all anxious to have a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs up and running. My hon. Friend has suggested that, if we cannot get an agreement on a Select Committee which runs every week and every year, perhaps the Government would consider setting up a Special Committee on Scottish Affairs, as existed in the past, to look at a particular issue and, if that works, we could go on to another Special Committee. I support my hon. Friend's helpful suggestion entirely.
I hope that the Leader of the House will think again, even at this stage. I am not pleading with him, because I will not plead with anyone on this matter. I ask him in the interests of his party and Government and of democracy and the people of Scotland to withdraw the motion and consider the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East. If he does, he will have done a great service to the House of Commons.

Sir Hector Monro: I wish that the reasonable approach of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) had been available on the Labour Front Bench a year ago. Earlier, my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) put some Opposition Members to flight by bringing out statistics which proved the humbug of their case. I shall put my view on how I saw matters last year.
After the 1987 election I expected to be a member of the Select Committee. On returning from the recess in October 1987, I reluctantly gave up my place on the Defence Select Committee —a place which I had achieved after many years of waiting and which I had enjoyed. That shows that I believed that I would be wanted for the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs and would have to forgo something that it had taken me a long time to achieve. I was happy that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey) was to be the Chairman.
Problems began to arise when on 12 November the Committee of Selection tabled the list of Members for the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. Members were available from the Conservative and minority parties but not from the Labour party. If the Labour party had got itself organised and made its Members available, the Committee might well have been set up on 12 November, ready to go and off, but it had not. The following week, my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North, as he has already explained, declined his place and made the interesting discovery that there was a right to refuse to serve should one so wish.
By the time that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) had arranged the names of Labour Members, the Committee of Selection was not in a position to set up the Select Committee because insufficient Conservative Members were available. During that crucial time in November, the hon. Members for Garscadden and for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) played their hand badly. The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley made it clear that on no account would the Labour party put up with any English Members on the Committee.

Mr. Ian Bruce: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) made an impassioned plea about accepting hon. Members from English constituencies on the Select Committee. It is strange that before joining the Standing Committee which considered the School Boards (Scotland) Bill, I was told that a story had been put into the mouths of reporters on the Glasgow Herald and The Scotsman. The same gentleman who accused me of having no interest in Scottish affairs was an English Member who had no interest in Scotland. The story did not appear. It went on the spike after the reporters checked their facts and learned of my experience in Scottish education.

Sir Hector Monro: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but he is a little ahead of my story. I am still dealing with November 1987 when the hon. Member for Garscadden tried to dictate to the Scottish Tory party, through the press and individually, saying that he would not approve of topping up unless it was with Members of Parliament who suited his view. I found that unacceptable. The Labour Front Bench spokesmen made it plain that they would accept only certain Tory Members to serve on a Select Committee. Their attitude did more than anything else to make me and my hon. Friends feel that the Labour party's attitude would make a Scottish Affairs Select Committee intolerable. Let me make it clear that until that happened I anticipated our having a Select Committee.
The Opposition's attitude has run true to form in business in the House and in Committee, including their refusal last April to co-operate, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House explained earlier, on a deal that would have allowed an additional English Tory Member on the Standing Committee, an arrangement by which we could have set up a Select Committee. The Labour party has fallen flat on its face on so many opportunities that it ill behoves it to come to the House groaning away and complaining that it is all our fault that there is no Select Committee on Scottish Affairs.
We are also worried about the usual channels. We all know that the House could not operate without them. The Whips on both sides of the House and the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House have to co-operate if the business of the House is not to grind to a halt. Everybody knows that it is only too easy to find ways of making business in the House intolerable if hon. Members wish to do so. Unless we accept discipline and honour agreements made through the usual channels, everything becomes difficult to manage and it is the country that loses.
Time and again the Opposition have failed to deliver agreements. Last week, the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), whom I am sorry to see has departed, made a lengthy speech on the Transport (Scotland) Bill after 11.45 pm. That was in order and no one could prevent him from doing so, but that was contrary to an agreement made through the usual channels that the business would end at 11.45 pm. The Minister and the Opposition spokesman arranged their closing speeches for that time. No wonder the House falls into disarray when that sort of thing occurs. We then had an interesting speech lasting 45 minutes from the hon. Member for Falkirk, West. However, that shows how important it is that we have discipline within and between parties if we are to proceed in a correct and efficient manner.

Mr. Alexander Eadie: I have a specific question to ask the hon. Gentleman who has courteously given way. Since he is extolling the various virtues of the House and telling us that there must be discipline and so on, is he telling the House that, with regard to serving on a Select Committee, he is on strike?

Sir Hector Monro: The hon. Gentleman should not try to bring his profession into the House. I am not used to taking such action.
In a Select Committee, where there will obviously be a small majority, discipline must prevail if it is to work satisfactorily. Nothing that I have seen in the Chamber or in Standing Committee has given me any encouragement to think that the Opposition will behave with such discipline in the Select Committee.
When I joined the Select Committee in the 1983 Parliament it was different from what the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North described. It was already at daggers drawn. It seemed an astonishing way of trying to interview and monitor the Scottish Office or to come to any unanimous report. Such an approach to the Select Committee was disappointing.
One has only to look at the reports on Scott Lithgow and Ravenscraig and Gartcosh—hon. Members may remember that I voted against the Government on that issue. We reached a unanimous view only on the Highlands and Islands Development Board and the fisheries protection reports. Otherwise, party lines were here, there and everywhere. That is no way to monitor effectively a Government Department. Fighting and voting on party lines time and again is no good. There was none of the cut and thrust of constructive debate that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North would like; amendments were purely party-political, with voting this way and that. It was a thoroughly disappointing operation in which to be involved.
The Opposition's attitude to discipline and to the usual channels which must operate it during the efforts to appoint a Select Committee in November and December 1987 and their likely attitude to the Select Committee if it were set up leads one to believe that the most satisfactory way forward, enabling hon. Members to spend as much time as possible on Scottish affairs in a united way throughout the House, is to support the motion of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House so that we can get on with business rather than listen to the Opposition groaning away on this issue which does not have the importance that they like to suggest.

Mrs. Ray Michie: It would appear that the House is about to administer the last rites to the Scottish Affairs Select Committee. Its death knell has sounded and the Government will see to it by trundling in their voting machine at the end of the debate, claiming authority while closing their eyes and ears to the fact that in Scotland and in the rest of the United Kingdom the majority of people do not support them. So much for democracy. So much for this place, the so-called mother of Parliaments. That makes it a sham. As my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) pointed out, after the last election the Secretary of State for Scotland, leading a Conservative band of nine Members,

said that it would be business as usual. But here we are, witnessing the lack of political will to set up a Select Committee.
I believe that the Committee of Selection should note the sensible suggestion that the composition of the Scottish Affairs Select Committee should reflect the number of Scottish seats held by the various political parties. That is what our amendment proposes. It would mean a Committee of five Labour Members, three Conservatives—which is a mite generous —two Social and Liberal Democrats and one Scottish National party member.
The assumption that that would not work is both ridiculous and insulting. On 13 January, referring to a former Select Committee, the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) said:
We were spending hours and hours indulging in what were often pure party-political battles." —[Official Report, 13 January 1988; Vol. 125, c. 408.]
Times have changed, as the Conservative party in Scotland knows only too well. I believe that a Scottish Select Committee constituted on the lines that I have suggested would work, particularly if it included the hon. Members for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) and for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe), and myself. There would be less of the alleged skulduggery and more feminine common sense.
A Select Committee does not legislate; neither does the Scottish Grand Committee. It has no Government majority. I find nothing more shameful than the spectacle of the Scottish Grand Committee sitting and talking in Edinburgh and then having to travel 400 miles to enact legislation down here. The fact that it is a convention of the House to have a Government majority on the Select Committee is not an acceptable excuse. This Government are all-powerful, and perfectly capable of changing or ignoring our conventions. But of course they will not do so, because they obviously do not want a Scottish Select Committee to have powers to call for persons, including Ministers, or to call for papers and records, to ensure effective scrutiny of the Scottish Office and Scottish public affairs. They do not want an in-depth look at the Government in Scotland who are plunging around like a rogue elephant and leaving a trail of destruction in their wake.
There has been no scrutiny of the consequences of the repeated reorganisations and restructuring of the Health Service, when it has been proved that the Government are incapable of good management. Their man management is deplorable, because they are unable to build on what is good and always end up throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
There has been no scrutiny of the Scottish Education Department and the morale of the teaching profession. Worst of all, there has been no scrutiny of the damage being done to our Scottish universities. Of course a Scottish Select Committee is not allowed to look at that aspect of our higher education. It is shameful and disgraceful, and so the destruction goes on.
I understand that five of the Scottish Tory Members attended Oxford or Cambridge, so it is not surprising that they care nothing for, and understand nothing of, our universities north of the border. The misguided interference of the University Grants Committee and those bred in a different academic tradition shows real hostility to Scottish intellectual needs, achievements and aspirations.


The so-called rationalisation of resources at the behest of the UGC betrays a complete inability to understand the purpose of a university in Scotland, or the town and gown relationship. In Scotland a university is a community institution. The UGC, however, sees it as departments or cost centres dotted around the country, on which it bases its allocation of funds. All in Scotland have suffered, none more so than Aberdeen university as it approaches its 500th anniversary, and the latest blow has been the announcement of the closure of its music department.
We have no Scottish Affairs Committee and no Scottish Members on the Education Select Committee. What hope is there?

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: None.

Mrs. Michie: None. Is the intention to reconstitute all Select Committees to reflect Scottish affairs? I do not know why we are having this debate. I believe that it is a farce.
Scottish Question Time has also become a farce because many of us are not called. We who try to represent our constituencies find that the time is taken up by people who know nothing about Scotland. All along the line we have been betrayed, and in the recent past we have been betrayed by two Prime Ministers. First, there was Lord Home of the Hirsel. In Scots "the Hirsel" means a place where sheep are kept. The night before the devolution referendum Lord Home promised the Scots that if they voted no they would get a better deal. In more recent times the present Prime Minister has done exactly the same.
Now Scotland knows that it has been betrayed again and again. The refusal to set up a Select Committee is another slap in the face for Scotland, my country. The Government should be warned that, through their continued arrogance and their dismissive attitude to Scottish political sensitivities and aspirations, they will bear the responsibility for breaking up the United Kingdom.

Mr. Allan Stewart: I am not sure quite to whom the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) referred when she talked about universities, but I assure her that I was born and educated at St. Andrew's and also taught there. I did, however, agree with her on at least one point: she was right in saying that it is extremely inconvenient for Scottish Grand Committee meetings to take place in Edinburgh. The sooner that they are moved to London the better.
The hon. Lady referred to the role of the Government in the debate. That was also mentioned by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), and I shall return to it later. First, let me refer to two earlier speeches by Opposition Members. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) made a constructive and sensible speech, wholly different in tone from all the previous Opposition speeches on the issue. Let me say to Labour Members that if that speech had been made on behalf of the parliamentary Labour party shortly after the general election they would have a Scottish Select Committee.
The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) is not in his place, although I do not criticise him for having had to slip out briefly, but for him to refer to the

many constructive interventions of my hon. Friends who represent English constituencies at Scottish Question Time and then to pray that in aid, asking them to serve on the Scottish Select Committee, is the height of humbug and hypocrisy. Every time any of my hon. Friends gets up, there is a kind of tribal yowling from the Opposition Benches.
It is absolutely clear that Opposition Members resent in principle interventions in Scottish debates by my hon. Friends who represent English constituencies. By contrast, I often enjoy the contributions of English Opposition Members to debates on Scottish affairs— occasionally they provide illuminating shafts of light. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras possibly lacked brilliant sparkle this evening; but his hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) did not. After the conclave at the SOGAT retreat just after the Govan by-election, the hon. Member for Copeland said of the conditions then prevailing among Scottish Labour Members:
The jocks are running about like headless chickens.
No doubt we shall hear some squawking from them, headless or no.
Of more direct relevance to the debate was the excellent recent statement by the Leader of the Opposition. I hope we can all agree to congratulate him on it. He said that the current debate and recent opinion polls about independence for Scotland were merely a talking point among the chattering classes. I hope that I have the unanimous support of Labour Members from Scottish constituencies in applauding that statement. The Leader of the Opposition holds many views with which I disagree, but I have always thought that on the Scottish question he is at heart the soundest of chaps.
If it is true that the debate about Scottish independence is merely a talking point for the chattering classes, how much more true that is about this debate, which perhaps is not even a talking point. It is, however, important, because of the point of principle that has been established for the future by my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker). The existence or otherwise of a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs is not in itself a matter of great importance. My view, about that have always been clear and on the record—

Mr. Salmond: I have been reading the Scottish insert in the Conservative manifesto of 1983 for the election at which the hon. Gentleman stood. It reads:
We are concerned at all times to improve the quality of government in Scotland. To this end, we have set up the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, which has done much useful work in Scotland and at Westminster.
The hon. Gentleman stood for election on that manifesto; has he changed his mind?

Mr. Stewart: Conditions changed somewhat between 1983 and 1987—precisely the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North in his excellent speech—

Mr. Bill Walker: Just to get the record straight, the early years of the Scottish Affairs Select Committee were successful—I made that clear in my speech. My reason for wanting things to change did not begin until 1985.

Mr. Stewart: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for putting his position so clearly. He makes a valid point.


My views on the matter were clearly and correctly reported in the Glasgow Herald as long ago as 28 July 1987, on the front page under the headline:
Scottish Committee should go, says Tory".
The Herald rightly quoted me as saying that the Scottish Select Committee should be abolished as a complete irrelevance and waste of time. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) made an interesting response. The Glasgow Herald reported that my statement met with scorn from the shadow Scottish Secretary:
it would be ludicrous to suggest that the Scottish Office … should escape the attention of a select committee
said the hon. Member for Garscadden. It struck me then that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues, in believing what he said, were going to make the classic error of confusing the improbable with the impossible, especially as Labour Members were going around at that time claiming that they had won the election and held a mandate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) rightly referred to the usual channels, but at the time in question the usual channels in Scotland had been abolished by the hon. Member for Garscadden, who proudly told the Scottish press that on his instructions Scottish Labour Members would not meet or discuss anything with my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) because he represented an English constituency. Labour Members failed to realise what was happening; they failed to realise my hon. Friend's determination and the real concerns of other Conservative Members. They showed an inability to count— with the exception of the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Lambie), who suggested his own formula for setting up a Select Committee, a Committee of five. I am open to correction, but I understand that that was rejected out of hand by the hon. Gentleman's parliamentary colleagues—

Mr. Lambie: The hon. Gentleman knows, as do all other former members of the Select Committee, that during the whole of my period as a member of it I said that it was too big—we were up to about 13. I continually made representations for a much smaller Committee. So what the hon. Gentleman said was nothing new—it was a continuation of a consistent policy which was usually honoured.

Mr. Stewart: I am glad to have given the hon. Gentleman the chance to make that point. He was right to say that he was consistent, and he speaks with the experience of having been the Committee's Chairman. It is a pity that his suggestion was ruled out of court by his hon. Friends.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries referred to the position taken by Scottish Labour Members in November and December last year and to their refusal to accept the idea of English Conservative Members which was advanced so reasonably by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North tonight, the hon. Member for Garscadden shook his head—I see the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey) shaking his head, too. But the record is clear, and I refer Opposition Members to it. On 22 October 1987, speaking on behalf of the Scottish parliamentary Labour group—I take it—the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) said this to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House:

the only options before the Government and the House are to give the Committee a Labour majority, which would reflect the balance of parties in Scotland, to reduce the membership of the Committee to three members, or to import English Tory Members to sit on it, which would be as unacceptable to them as to us. May we have an absolute assurance from the Leader of the House that neither of the second two options would be accepted and put before the House?" —[Official Report, 22 October 1987; Vol. 120, c. 941.]
That seems clear enough to me. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries was right in referring to the record when he concluded, in essence, that the Labour party blew it. As the House knows, the Government went ahead anyway, and nominated the five Scottish Conservative Back Benchers to the Committee of Selection, including myself.
I must say that I did not realise the importance of Standing Order No. 104—nor did my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries—which was so successfully invoked by my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North, who had obviously studied the Standing Orders in greater detail than I had. He has, of course, established an important principle, which will, no doubt, be referred to by many hon. Members in future. The principle is that there is no compulsion on any hon. Member to serve on a Select Committee—or, I assume, on any other Committee of the House.

Dr. Reid: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. The important principle that has been established this evening—if the hon. Gentleman can drag himself away for a moment from the transcendental minutiae that seemed to make up the bulk of his speech—has been established by the Leader of the House. He told us, in effect, that if Members of the Government party refused to serve, as is their right, on any Select Committee. the Government would be legitimately justified in refusing to establish that Select Committee, thereby avoiding any scrutiny of Government business. That has been established tonight and it will have implications far wider than for Scotland alone; it will have implications for the good government of the whole of the United Kingdom and for the democratic scrutiny of Parliament.

Mr. Stewart: The important point that I am making—I accept that it may not refer to Standing Committees—
is that it has been established that no hon. Member is under any compulsion to serve on a Select Committee.
I shall now deal with the Government's role in the matter, which has been referred to constantly by Opposition Members. The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute and the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland quoted the statement that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State made after the last election, that it would be business as usual. However, the point is that the Select Committee is the business not of the Secretary of State but of Back Benchers. My hon. Friend the Minister of State may be winding up the debate this evening, but that is because the Scottish Office obviously has a general interest in the Select Committee and in matters relating to Scotland. I hope that my hon. Friend will confirm to the House that the Secretary of State for Scotland has no responsibility whatever in relation to the setting up of the Select Committee.
Reference has been made to the Whips and the business managers, who are, of course, in constant communication with hon. Members. However, there is no compulsion that they, or anyone else, can put on hon. Members who do not


want to serve on a Select Committee. Many of the criticisms that have been laid at the Government's door tonight are wholly misplaced because the Government did not have, and do not have, the power to compel Back Benchers who do not wish to serve on the Select Committee to do so.
I now want to make one or two points about my own view of the Select Committee. I asked myself whether there would be any benefit to the people of Eastwood if I served on the Scottish Affairs Committee. The answer to that was, fairly unequivocally, that there would be no benefit that I could discern to my constituents from spending time on the Scottish Affairs Committee. The second question was whether there was any chance that the Scottish Affairs Committee would do a reasonable job. The Opposition might be reasonably objective in accepting that we do not live in a perfect world, so it might get on reasonably well. I referred to that possibility in my speech in the last debate on this subject and I referred to the possibility of concrete, bankable assurances on that. Of course, none was forthcoming. I have never thought that there was a reasonable chance, in the present political climate and in the light of the experiences of my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North, that the Scottish Affairs Committee, if it was established, would do a reasonable and objective job.
Labour Members have largely brought this situation on themselves. They delight in referring to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and his supporters—of whom I am one—as quislings and traitors. The hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) is on record as using the term "quisling" from the Opposition Front Bench, and I was described on a radio broadcast in which I took part with an Opposition Member as a traitor. If that is Opposition Members' attitude, they will not get the co-operation that they need to set up the Scottish Affairs Committee. The comeuppance for that attitude, and for using the language of nationalism, was their by-election defeat in Govan. I hope that relations between the parties will be reasonable throughout this Parliament, but it must be said that the Labour party in Scotland has brought the end of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs on itself.

Mr. Harry Ewing: The speech of the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) was not designed to create good relations between the Labour and the Conservative parties or, indeed, between any two groups of people.
It is difficult to contain one's anger at the way in which Scottish affairs are being treated. Apart from the two opening speeches, all the speeches made so far have been made by hon. Members who represent Scottish constituencies. Rightly or wrongly, I feel that the three Conservative Back Benchers present—the hon. Members for Eastwood, for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) and for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro)—have a perverted sense of pleasure at the way in which they are frustrating the political will of the people of Scotland.
I have been in the House for nearly 18 years. I have known countless Leaders of the House, but I have never seen one in a weaker position than the present Leader of

the House as he sought to defend his position. In effect, he was saying that five Tory Back Benchers can stop 62 Opposition Members of all political parties who represent Scottish constituencies from carrying out effectively the task for which they were elected.
I make no apology for repeating a warning that I gave not long after the last general election. Democracy is a fragile thing, and it has been seriously damaged by the attitude displayed in this debate. I came here tonight innocently believing that we were searching for a solution to the problem of setting up a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. I was absolutely wrong. The purpose of the debate has been not only to kill off but to bury the possibility of setting up a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, and I suppose that I should not be surprised at that.
Before I expound my argument, I want to register my protest that the debate is to be wound up by the Minister of State, Scottish Office, although it is not a protest against him personally. It is ludicrous that a Minister of State at the Department that is the subject of complaints about its failing to be examined should try to justify why that Department should not be examined. There is no place in this debate for a Scottish Office Minister, and this really ought not to be allowed to happen. It is a further insult to the integrity of the House.
There is a deliberate attempt to diminish the role and responsibility of the Scottish Office. That is why in the last Session, major amendments to the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Amendment Act 1984 were contained in English legislation. That is why amendments in relation to educational provision in Scotland were contained in English legislation. That is why the proposals to privatise the South of Scotland Electricity Board and the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board are contained in a United Kingdom Bill. It is much more sinister than just having insufficient Scottish Tory Back-Bench Members. If the role of the Scottish Office continues to diminish, it will no longer be worth examining.
There has also been an attempt, either deliberately or unconsciously, to deceive. The Leader of the House and his colleagues talked about the non-existence of Select Committees on Scottish Affairs between 1973 and 1979. If the right hon. Gentleman did not know about this, he must have been inadequately briefed. In those days a Select Committee was set up to consider a specific matter. In the 1960s, in response to a demand from the House of Commons, a Select Committee was set up to consider the steel industry in Scotland. A similar Committee was set up in 1972–73 to consider land use in Scotland. Those Committees were different from the Select Committees that we have now, which examine the work of a specific Department.
I can say with some pleasure that the Leader of the House is a good personal friend of mine, but it will be a sad reflection on him if he tries to persuade the country that a Government with such a large majority cannot find enough Back-Bench Members to form a Select Committee. The right hon. Gentleman can introduce all sorts of legislation against the wishes of the people of Scotland. That is dead easy for him. He can say, "That is all ABC stuff, but do not ask me to set up a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs because I cannot do it." He is the weakest Leader of the House in the weakest position that I have


ever seen. I am sorry to criticise him in his absence, but that is not my fault. After presenting that picture to the House, he cannot be a proud man tonight.
It was odious to hear the Leader of the House, followed by the hon. Members for Tayside, North and for Dumfries, compare the position of Scotland with that of Northern Ireland. It sounded like a warning to us. We should not allow those remarks to pass unchallenged. Tomorrow when we read Hansard and in the days and weeks ahead we must consider why those remarks were made and their likely effect on Scottish politics.
The SNP, the other parties in Scotland, The Scotsman, the Glasgow Herald, Scottish Television and the BBC have all had great fun saying that the Labour party is being ignored. But tonight the SNP and the Social and Liberal Democrats are being ignored, too. We are all being ignored, and that is what has caused the tension in Scotland.
Our fragile democracy could easily be snapped by the attitude we have seen displayed. There is a way out but I admit that it is a compromise. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) was kind enough to refer to a proposition that I wish to put. I am grateful that the Leader of the House has returned in time to hear it.
The way out of the dilemma is to return to the original Select Committee system. The Leader of the House needs only to put a motion on the Order Paper suggesting that a Select Committee should be set up to consider a specific subject. My goodness, there is no shortage of subjects. There is the Hughes report on the future of the Scottish Development Agency, the Highlands and Islands Development Board and the Training Agency. Nothing is more important for the industrial future of Scotland.
Mr. Hughes put his suggestions to the Prime Minister. The Secretary of State for Scotland trailed along on his coat tails. He did not know anything about the document until he boarded the train at Waverley station, and the first time he saw it was when it was handed to him in No. 10. If that is the treatment given to the Secretary of State, it is time we looked at the proposals in the Hughes report and the effect they will have on the SDA, HIDB and the Training Agency.
I am sure that the SNP would want to examine its proposition on an independent Scotland in Europe. No attempt was made to examine that subject in "Left, Right and Centre" on Scottish Television on Friday night.
There is the issue involving the massive American hospital to be built on Clydebank. It will be a blood transfusion centre provided out of NHS funds. There has been no inquiry into that.
There are plenty of subjects in need of discussion and the Leader of the House should suggest that a special Select Committee on Scottish Affairs be set up to consider one of them. We would see how that Committee got on and we could then move on to another subject.
I plead with the Leader of the House not to close the hook. He will win the vote, but he will lose the argument. In losing the argument, he may well lose Scotland and that could raise problems that even he does not begin to comprehend.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: It has been an interesting debate so far and I wish to contribute to it by talking about the basic principles that my hon. Friends and I believe are at stake. The first principle is how the House deals with Scottish business and the second is how the House responds to the aspirations and political desires of the Scottish people and how it meets their expectations.
Those two principles are closely entwined. If we ignore one, we ignore the other. The integrity of both cannot be ignored because, ultimately, we know that sovereignty lies with the people of Scotland. It is demonstrated by their political will and democratic voice. There is a long legal tradition in Scotland that sovereignty lies with the people. That may come as a shock to the Leader of the House, but it is well worth bearing in mind in view of some of the comments made earlier.
The SNP amendment emphasises the importance of the conduct of business in this place and how it responds to the political circumstances in Scotland.
I was distressed at the way in which the Leader of the House introduced the motion. It seems to us that he was finding a way of riding roughshod over the Standing Orders of this establishment. It seems strange to have Standing Orders if one then proceeds to disregard them. The Leader of the House seemed to be trying to ditch Standing Order No. 130 as quickly as he ditched the possibility of having a nuclear disposal site in his constituency just before the last general election.
It is important that the Leader of the House should take into account the way in which his remarks will be perceived in Scotland, not just by hon. Members but by journalists and the people who read their newspapers.
The Leader of the House should read the article in The Scotsman today. It is interesting because it talks about the way in which Scottish business is conducted here and how people perceive it. The article refers to the many interventions by English Members of Parliament during Scottish business since the last general election. The article says:
If they want to question the Secretary of State for Scotland, that, they say, is their right; Scots can question the Home Secretary, after all. If they decide not to form a Scottish Select Committee, that's also the right of the dominant Commons party.
And if they decide to change the rules on the make-up of the committee debating Scottish Bills, well, that, too, is up to them and not the Opposition.
The article refers to the increasingly vociferous and unashamed interventions by English Members, to the impact that that is having on Scottish business and how the Opposition parties feel about it. The final paragraph in the article says:
Those issues have certainly contributed to a feeling among some Opposition back-benchers, not all of them Scottish, that 'all bets are off' and that attempts to push business later into the night, obstruct business and shun the usual niceties of parliamentary life are legitimate.
It is the arrogance that we see on the Conservative Benches that has led to such a response by the people of Scotland, the Members of Parliament who represent them and the journalists who watch our proceedings. The arrogance that is being displayed tonight on the Conservative Benches is the continuation of a process that is alienating an increasing number of people from what is claimed to be the democratic process. That must worry all those who believe in democracy.


As for our scrutiny of Scottish business, I must remind hon. Members of the major issues for which the Scottish Office is responsible. It is responsible for health, social work, education and local government. Policy changes are taking place in all those major areas and large sums of money are involved. These matters must be scrutinised. It is not sufficient, as the Leader of the House said, to suggest that that scrutiny can be dealt with by other procedures that are available to the House.
There used to be a Scottish Question Time once every three weeks. It is now once every six weeks. [Interruption.] I am corrected. It is once every four weeks. It just seems like six weeks. That has diminished our opportunities to question the Government. Very few Scottish Members are lucky enough to be successful in the ballot. Other Members, who have no genuine interest in Scottish affairs, put down questions and prevent hon. Members who represent Scottish constituencies from speaking.
It is interesting to note that the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) is shaking his head. He was quoted in The Scotsman on Friday as being quite proud of the fact that he had sent a circular to some of his hon. Friends with constituencies south of the border encouraging them to submit questions to the Table Office that could be asked during Scottish Question Time. The hon. Gentleman is totally unashamed and unrepentant, and it suggests that Members with English constituencies cannot have a genuine interest in Scottish affairs.
The Scottish Grand Committee meets rarely. It meets once or twice in Scotland, and in July there is a mad rush when the Committee tries to deal with Scottish Estimates twice a week. That is hardly an effective way of scrutinising the Government's proposals for Scotland. General debates on Scotland are very short. English Members are now being added to the Committees on Bills that consider Scottish legislation. I had always understood that Standing Committees that consider legislation that relates specifically to Scotland should consist of Scottish Members. Even that right is being further eroded. It is not sufficient to suggest that other Select Committees can fill the vacancies that have been caused by the Government's abdication of their responsibilities.
I refer the Leader of the House again to the third report of the Select Committee on Energy. The introduction to the report refers to this Session's legislation and says:
In the absence of a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, we have felt it our duty to examine the Government's plans for the Scottish electricity industry. However we have not probed the purely Scottish dimension in the depth which would have justified a full and separate Scottish report. Scottish matters are dealt with in this report, but generic references should largely be understood as relating to the ESI in England and Wales.
That Select Committee, which is the exception rather than the rule, stated that, although it tried seriously to look at the Scottish electricity supply industry, it could not do justice to considering that issue. Therefore, we do not believe that other Select Committees will fill the gap. Nor did the Leader of the House suggest that Scottish hon. Members should be appointed to all those Select Committees to ensure that we can participate in them. I give him fair warning that many of us will be looking to participate in those Select Committees whether he likes it or not.
We are deeply concerned about the offence being delivered to the democratic process in Scotland. Essentially, we now have a governor-general with a few flunkeys in Scotland. Perhaps the failure to set up a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs will go down in history as the revolt of the flunkeys. We now have no scrutiny over a man who is operating as a governor-general in Scotland. The real issue is the lack of the Government's mandate in Scotland. At the last general election the people of Scotland spoke very clearly. They delivered to the House 62 Opposition Members and only 10 Conservative Members. That was a clear mandate from the people of Scotland that they do not wish for the Government's policies. To add insult to injury the Government are now denying us the right to scrutiny.
The arrogance that the Government have displayed, not only during this debate but throughout the continuing sad saga of attempts to establish the Select Committee, has created the strength of unity among the Opposition parties which will make life a great deal more difficult for the Government. I welcome that strength of unity of purpose on the Opposition Benches. We are not prepared to see the democratic political aspirations of the people of Scotland pushed around any longer. We are demanding our rights as an Opposition to ensure that there is a Select Committee. It will be a serious misjudgment on the part of the Government if they think that they can get away with it. The people of Scotland will speak again. If the Government have had difficulty with five Back Benchers, they should think of the difficulties that they will have with none.

Mr. Norman Hogg: The hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing), the leader of the Scottish National party, will forgive me if I do not immediately follow the points that she has raised. We have been debating this matter in the Chamber and through the usual channels for more than a year now. It represents, first, a serious failure on the part of the Government to secure support for their policies in Scotland in the general election and thus being unable to return sufficient Members to the House of Commons properly to discharge the Government's duties in the House, and, secondly, it represents a failure on the part of the usual channels, in which the Leader of the House is a very important figure, to secure adherence to the Standing Orders of the House. That is a very serious matter to which I will return later.
Those of us who have served on Select Committees have greatly benefited from that experience. I have no doubt that serving on a Select Committee gives a focus to the work of Back Benchers and gives purpose to membership of the House that is not easily replaced. It is regrettable that Scottish Back Benchers have lost that opportunity. When I came to the House in 1979 my only opportunity as a Back Bencher to learn about the workings of government was through serving on a Select Committee.
The Scottish Select Committee has been a success. I heard the Minister of State talking on Radio 4 this morning and shedding crocodile tears because there would not be a Select Committee on Scottish affairs, saying what a wonderful job it had done and that it had been indirectly responsible for setting up Locate in Scotland. He rightly said that it was indirectly responsible, and I was pleased to


serve on that Select Committee. Now that he is a Minister he does not want himself or the workings of the Department scrutinised. If he did, he would have persuaded Government Back Benchers to serve on the Committee.
A few Back Benchers have held the Government to ransom and ensured that no Select Committee has been set up. The rump of three out of the rump of 10 are telling the Government what will happen with regard to the functions of the House. We heard the usual speech of the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), recounting his past glories and claiming some for the present Session, which I found intriguing. The hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) made a disgraceful speech. The hon. Gentleman used to be a distinguished figure in Scottish industry —that is what is said in the manifesto—and was a Minister, but he has become the youngest pensioner and has been sent to the Council of Europe, which is a sort of Saga tours for the House.

Mr. Allan Stewart: Surely the hon. Gentleman appreciates that I play an important role in the Council of Europe by looking after the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Lambie); we cannot rely on the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) to do so.

Mr. Hogg: No one could be responsible for my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Lambie).
I cannot be unkind about the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) because he is the last of the decent Tories. He could enhance his reputation by voting with us tonight.
The Leader of the House gave undertakings, which can be checked in Hansard, about everything that will be done to set up the Committee. In a debate on 27 October 1987, the Prime Minister seemed to be saying that she foresaw the establishment of a Committee. In that regard, the Leader of the House said:
I look forward to hearing their more detailed proposals for constructive guidance to the Committee of Selection, and I hope that we may soon see the Select Committee established. I share their regret that it has not been possible to appoint it."—[Official Report, 13 January 1988; Vol. 125, c. 400.]
Since that time, flexible proposals have been introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). The Leader of the House cannot be pleased that his reputation has suffered because of the pig-headed obstinacy displayed by Tory Back Benchers. We understand that the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) and the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) have experienced difficulty in serving on Select Committees because they have both been unwell, but there is no excuse for the other three hon. Gentlemen, and it is unacceptable that they should refuse to serve. All that we have heard from them tonight has been so much cant. They have been dishonest with the House and have not said that they do not want to serve on the Committee. This will further erode respect for the Tory party in Scotland, which will be fortunate to have a single hon. Member returned at the next election. I am not as concerned about that as I am about the loss of respect for Parliament and its institutions. Those who are refusing to serve should think before they continue their action.
I hope that the Leader of the House and the usual channels listened carefully to the major contribution made

by my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing). What he said was important, and I hope that the Government are big enough to take it on board.

Sir Marcus Fox: In spite of the increasing popularity of English hon. Members among Opposition Members, I intervene only as Chairman of the Committee of Selection. Nothing has changed since the debate that I introduced on 13 January. Obviously, it is not necessary for me to go over the same ground. I am glad that my Committee has not been criticised during this debate. Hon. Members understand that the established conventions are maintained unless instructed by the House to do otherwise.
After listening to every word in the debate and considering what has taken place, I have noticed a shift in ground. The idea that one or two English Members may be acceptable was a runner, but, somehow, the idea that all five Conservative Members should be drawn from England was not acceptable. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] For a start, there were no volunteers. [Interruption.] I shall let hon. Members into a secret. We use conscription for Committees that consider Bills. In my time, there has never been conscription or press-ganging for Select Committees. That would be a retrograde step.
All my Committee's efforts have failed. The hon. Members for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) and for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), who sit on the Committee and., I am quite sure, shadow my activities, will confirm that. In November 1977, we set up 14 out of 15 Committees. We would have loved to have set up all 15. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) suggested that the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs is not to be set up because it would be inconvenient. That is surprising. Most, if not all, Select Committees are inconvenient to Government. That is what they are there for.

Mr. Salmond: Why did the Committee of Selection follow the unwritten conventions of the House in relation to the balance of the Select Committee? It paid no attention to Standing Order No. 130. There were at least 50 Opposition volunteers who would have happily sat on the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs.

Sir Marcus Fox: The hon. Gentleman might direct his attention to other Standing Orders. Our most important remit is that the Government shall have a majority on all Committees. That is paramount. [Interruption.] We do not want to introduce an element of fear. We have debated that point before. We are a unitary Parliament, and there is no instruction on my Committee to take account of the fact that there are far more Opposition Members for membership of the Select Committee.

Mr. Salmond: Why?

Sir Marcus Fox: I will discuss that matter with the hon. Gentleman on some other occasion.
Any fair-minded person would accept that the Leader of the House gave a fair report of what took place. It is certainly my intention to vote for the motion.

Mr. Dick Douglas: Profound democratic and constitutional issues are before us. More important is the issue of our failure to produce what all


hon. Members seem to desire. That will be a mystery to the people not only of Scotland but of the United Kingdom. Not one hon. Member has said that we should not set up the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. Every hon. Member whom I have heard tonight has suggested that such a Committee is profoundly to be desired. We have a Government with one of the largest majorities in modern times. The Leader of the House, not in his role as a Government Minister but as a guardian of the House., said, "I have failed." The right hon. Gentleman should take that as a personal failure.
I shall not go into the history of Select Committees, but we invented Select Committees in the 14th century. The Select Committees of the 20th century are not of the same calibre, nor is the power of Government. I must disagree with my hon. Friend, the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing). In Scotland we have an elected dictator, not a governor-general.

Mr. John Home Robertson: He is not elected.

Mr. Douglas: He is elected by the people of Edinburgh, Pentlands.

Mr. Harry Ewing: rose—

Mr. Douglas: Forgive me, but I wish to be brief. We have an elected dictator and the power of the Scottish Office is not diminishing, but increasing. The arrogance of the Scottish Office is increasing because it is not constrained.
Select Committees have few powers. The House gives them powers to call for persons, papers and records. Their sole purpose is to report to the House on the workings of the Government. Is this great Government with their massive majority going to suggest in 1988 going on 1989 that all the other Departments of state can be investigated except the Scottish Office?

Mr. Bill Walker: What about Northern Ireland?

Mr. Douglas: The people of Northern Ireland are capable of speaking for themselves. We are dealing with Scotland. We have a unitary Parliament, but it has designed devolution. We have devolution of administration and of the executive, and we have historic devolution of legal powers. Are the Government suggesting that every Department but the one which the House and the Government have decided is to be devolved can be investigated?
This is an issue, not for Scotland, but for this House and democracy. That is why the Leader of the House is making a farce of himself by not replying to the debate. This is not a job for a ministerial lackey. It is a job for the Leader of the House. If he does not reply to the debate, he is not doing his job. If the Minister replies, it will be tantamount to Casanova preaching chastity. It is said that the Scottish Office is not to be investigated. He will say that we should not have this organ of investigation.
Although we have spoken about Scottish affairs, this Parliament had better take note that if the Government can display such arrogance towards Scotland, next they will display the same arrogance towards the rest of the United Kingdom.

Mr. George Galloway: Despite the giggling bravado from Conservative Members, all hon. Members know that this is an auspicious occasion and that after tonight nothing will ever be the same again.
In view of the hour, I have thrown my notes aside. I want to give one quotation from perhaps the greatest of all Scots, Hugh MacDiarmid. I was searching earlier in the Library for a new descriptive way of talking about a cynical, arrogant, complacent, comprador which is the Scottish Conservative party, the best of which sits on the Front Bench and the worst of which we have heard from so verbosely tonight. I found that description in a wonderful poem of Hugh MacDiarmid called "Hosting of Heroes." He discusses the great heroes of Scottish history and then says:

"What have we to-day?
Dingy parades of vermin!
Details of the English army
In clothes the colour of excrement,
Or processions like that in Edinburgh
In honour of Sir Walter Scott's centenary,
A funeral trickle of Bailies and Lawyers,
Members of the Leith Water Board, …
God! What a crawl of cockroaches!"

Hugh MacDiarmid said it—no one could say it better.

Mr. Donald Dewar: I start by declaring something of an interest, because I was Chairman of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs for some two years. I have no doubt about its worth as an institution and as a means of scrutinising the activities of
Government. I genuinely do not recognise the jaundiced account that we have heard of its activities from the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) and other hon. Gentlemen.
I can remember, for example, a lengthy and contentious inquiry into the attraction of inward investment to Scotland, and the inquiry into the provision of Civil Service jobs. On a perhaps lesser level politically, but I believe of great importance, was the pressure that the Committee was able to mount in a quick hearing on the future of the BBC Scottish symphony orchestra. It is genuinely sad that we do not have a Select Committee operating as it should in Scotland.
I have listened with great care to the Government's case. Ministers have presented themselves —or some of them have—as men of reason, but they are in an unfortunate situation despite their best efforts. When I shared a radio studio with the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Lang) this morning, he made it clear that it was everyone's fault but the Government's. I find that a completely unconvincing posture—it just will not do.
It is not a technical matter or one of interest only to the barrack room lawyers that always abound in the House. It is a matter of fundamental importance for the machinery of government and how we scrutinise our legislation. The Executive should be challenged and tested, and, if we cannot do that effectively, we shall be all the poorer for it. I feel strongly that there is presently no Government Department where that is more important than in the Scottish Office. It is not partisan to say that there is probably no Department of state that has a thinner claim to widespread popular support or approval, or whose policies are seen on a wider scale and range of opinion as


being insensitive and inappropriate. We really should take seriously our duties to the people of Scotland, to the electorate and to the business of the House.
The Minister of State said this morning that it was not the responsibility of the Government. Of course, I understand his theoretical point about how the system works. However, we all know that it has everything to do with the Government and the usual channels, and how we operate in the House. I take it ill to hear the accusation made that the reason why we do not have a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs is the inflexibility of myself or my hon. Friends or our general attitude. It is a thoroughly unpleasant charge, and the dreary version of the facts that has been rehearsed ad longum in a number of speeches does not bear even an approximate relationship to the facts, as I remember them.
Of course, I do not hide the fact that we would have preferred a Select Committee that was set up on the basis of the involvement of the Scottish Tory Back Benchers. I believe that the House would have been astonished if that had not been our preference. However, at an early stage, without being indiscreet or revealing what I should not about the usual channels, it became clear that there was a problem with Scottish Tory Back Benchers. Therefore, we made it clear that we would be prepared to consider a topping-up operation with hon. Members who represented English seats, but who had a genuine interest in Scottish affairs, or who were prepared to cultivate that interest. I can honestly say that the only time I, at least consciously, stood in the way of a proposed deal or was in any sense difficult—I believe it was with complete justification—was when it was suggested to me that I should buy the involvement of the Tory Members on the Select Committee by doing a deal that would reduce the number of Tories serving on Standing Committees. Clearly, it was unacceptable. I do not believe that the Leader of the House would for a moment have expected me to accept that deal.
We have been left with the Minister's regrets. The one, simple reason why we do not have a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs is that Conservative Members will not serve. That is not a matter of regret. It is a cause for concern and condemnation. Given the present state of Scottish politics, it amounts—I say this in cold blood—to a dereliction of duty.
Even if we accept that there were misunderstandings at some point—if there were, they must have come from confused reports about what was happening in the usual channels and about the Labour party's attitude—they have been removed in debates and public statements over a period. If the Minister of State is right in representing the Government's position if he did this morning and if the Leader of the House genuinely regrets that there is no Select Committee, there is now no impediment, except the reluctance and prejudice of Conservative Members to serve on that Committee.
If the Scottish Members will not serve, there is a case for saying that other Members should be prepared to come forward. I do not want to rehearse the argument about what has been happening at Scottish Question Time. I repeat a fundamental point that I made in an intervention. We do not argue that hon. Members have no right to table questions at Scottish Question Time; we say that that right should be used responsibly and not abused as it has been recently. If we are asked to believe that the enthusiasm is

not whipped up and is genuine, why is it so difficult to get Members to come forward and sit on the Select Committee?
The hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) was the only hon. Member to mention that we shall now have lengthy, contentious Standing Committees looking at opting-out powers for Scottish schools and other such matters and they will have on them probably five added English Back Benchers to preserve the Government's majority. It may be that I am overcynical in thinking that they have been "persuaded"—I use that as a technical term used by the Whips —to serve. Perhaps they are genuine volunteers. On whichever basis, it suggests that if there were a will among Conservative Members, even among Ministers, we could have a Scottish Select Committee. Opposition Members—I think that I speak for all parties— believe that that should happen.
The trouble is that the Government have connived and there are serious implications for the whole Select Committee system. An inconvenient Committee has been shuffled into limbo and —I say this in the presence of the much respected Chairman of the Liaison Committee, the right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins)—it is a dangerous precedent which is not in the interests of the House. It is a sad history that sums up all that is wrong with the present Government and the way in which they use the parliamentary process. It has become a niggling formality, discharged in a perfunctory fashion. Political debate is all too often reduced to a flat statement of intent which allows no compromise. The situation is made all the worse when the machinery to challenge the Executive's power is virtually scrapped. That clearly was not the intention of the House when Standing Order No. 130 was approved and included the Scottish Affairs Select Committee. I say advisedly that there are points of principle at stake. The Opposition are deeply unhappy about the way in which the Government have conducted this business.
There have been robust exchanges in the debate—sometimes good-natured, sometimes not so good-natured. I may say many things about the hon. Member for Eastwood—that he is unhelpful, unrepresentative and inadequate—but I would not want to call him a quisling or a traitor. However robust the exchanges, they should not deceive anyone about the depth of feelings on these issues.
I am astonished that, given the heat of the argument and the central position that the matter holds in Scottish political debate, the Secretary of State should have chosen not to take part in the debate. It is a major error of judgment on his part.
I recognise that Ministers will have the votes in the Lobby. That is the harsh reality which we have had to live with for some considerable time. But we want to mark our dismay and disgust about what has been happening. We shall do it by voting in the Lobbies, but that is not enough. We shall pursue the matter in the months ahead.
There was an interesting exchange with you, Mr. Speaker, during points of order earlier in which you seemed to confirm my impression that the Government motion contains no instruction to the Committee of Selection to cease its efforts to set up a Select Committee which still clearly exists under the Standing Orders of the House. I want to make it clear that we shall fight for the cause and continue to press for the establishment of that


Committee using the fact that it still exists in a state of suspended animation, but ought properly be brought to life.
The contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) was constructive and helpful. There are undoubtedly pressing matters of debate and interest in Scotland where the intense questioning and information—gathering methods of the Select Committee would be particularly valuable and we do not intend to lose sight of that.
I said that we should mark our disapproval in some way tonight. It will probably not come as a great surprise to hon. Members that I have no wish to embarrass or disrupt the House. That would be largely counter-productive and too easily misrepresented. I have no inclination to challenge in any way the authority of the Chair. You, Mr. Speaker, represent the House, and the House is the victim of the way in which the Select Committee system is being treated by the Government.
What I shall do is to ask Scottish colleagues, and Scottish colleagues alone, not to listen to the self-justification and special pleading to come. We do not believe that we can let the matter pass without expressing our dismay at the Government's course of action—their shabby and deplorable determination to undermine the proper scrutiny of Scottish business. I shall not sit and listen to any litany of excuses and I shall invite my colleagues, irrespective of their party, to go with me now from this place and not listen.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Ian Lang): We are witnessing another own goal, just as this evening's debate has been an own goal, which not even the long reach of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) could have saved. The whole issue has been one more own goal in the lengthening history of such mishaps that we have seen befall the Opposition since June 1987.
It is plain from the facts revealed by my hon. Friends that the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs could have been set up had Opposition Members been more reasonable in the earlier stages of negotiations. The hon. Member for Garscadden, alas no longer with us, spoke of misunderstandings, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) pointed out, the Opposition's intractable attitudes were all too clear in the matters that he described.
This is a short but important debate. I should have thought that it would have been a relief to Opposition Members that at last they had a subject on which all in the Scottish Labour party could have agreed, because there is little that unites them these days. But even that fragile unity would probably have been undermined when I said that I share their regret that we have not succeeded in setting up a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. I share their wish that it had been possible to set up such a Committee, but, as my hon. Friends' speeches have revealed, the fault for that does not lie on one side of the House alone.
It is important to emphasise—I am glad to confirm this to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood—that the manning of Select Committees is a matter for the House,

not for the Government. That is fundamental to this issue. The Opposition's amendment is factually inaccurate on that point.
As a Minister at the Scottish Office, and on behalf of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friends who are also Ministers there, I emphasise that it is pity that the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs has not been set up. We would have welcomed it as one more form of scrutiny of Scottish affairs. I believe that we have a good story to tell in Scotland, with our policies on housing, education, industry, local government and, indeed, inward investment.
The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas)—alas, also no longer with us to hear the answer to his questions—talked of dictatorship, and in the next breath urged the Government to use their majority to force through the kind of decision that would suit him. I emphasise to him and to other Opposition Members, who I hope will at least read the report of our debate in Hansard tomorrow, that it was the present Government who established the set of 12 departmental Select Committees—precisely because we think it right that Back Benchers should have an opportunity to carry out a check on the activities of the Executive. It was this Government who brought forward the proposals to which the House gave its approval.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) on what by general agreement was an excellent speech. It was well rehearsed and well argued, and it scored one bullseye after another. Let me say candidly that I disagree with my hon. Friend's attitude to the Select Committee proposals, as I have told him in the past. But it is a travesty to suggest that his attitude to that calls into question his sense of duty to Scotland. His record of dedicated and consistent work—in Committee, in the Chamber and elsewhere —is beyond question. Whether on behalf of his constituents' interests or those of Scotland—or, indeed, such important United Kingdom interests as defence, on which he is an active participant—his application has been exemplary, and his commitment and breadth of experience have been of value to the House. Nevertheless, I think that it would have been better to add the Select Committee work to his other commitments, and to try to steer it in what could have been productive and useful directions.
The House is indebted to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to the humbug on the Opposition Benches. I offer him another example. Much has been said today about the importance of scrutiny of the Executive, in the Scottish Office particularly, for which a Select Committee would be appropriate. But, if a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs is so important now, why was no such Committee set up between 1974 and 1979 when Labour was in office? We had individual Select Committees in the years of the Conservative Government in the 1970s, but no Select Committee scrutiny was thought necessary by the Labour party during the havoc that they were wreaking on the country during their five years of government.

Mr. Dobson: Does the Minister also recognise that there were no other departmental Committees at that time? The proposal for such Committees came from an all-party Select Committee on procedure and was duly endorsed by the House on an all-party—not a


Government—basis in 1979. All that the Minister is saying about what happened before 1979 is irrelevant to the argument that he is trying to put forward.

Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman underlines my point. By illustrating that there were no Select Committees in 1974–79, he compounds the felony. The fact remains that the last Labour Government did not set up Select Committees to study Departments, but as soon as the Conservative Government came into office we undertook, and fulfilled, the commitment to set up 12 departmental Select Committees, including one to scrutinise Scottish affairs.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: My hon. Friend has missed one step in the argument. The Labour Government refused to allow the Select Committee report to be debated. It was not debated until the Government changed. The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), who subsequently became Leader of the Labour party, as Leader of the House would not allow the report to be debated because he did not wish the House to have the opportunity to vote to set up a Select Committee.

Mr. Lang: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, whose authoritative knowledge of such matters is beyond question. It reminds me of the occasion when the Labour Government presented the Boundary Commission report to the House and then used their own majority to vote it down. We know the Labour party's attitude to constitutional matters.
I was surprised that the Scottish National party chose to participate in the debate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North pointed out, it was a supreme example of humbug in 1979, refusing as it did to take part in the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. The hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) made no attempt to answer that point in her intervention. The Scottish National party has come to this Parliament to destroy Scotland's place in it, so it has no locus in a debate on extending Scottish involvement in its processes.
I can understand the anxieties that my hon. Friends must have felt about the intentions of Opposition Members towards the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. For a Select Committee to be effective it should seek to be non-partisan in its approach, as the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) so rightly pointed out in his sensible speech. It is a pity that he is not here to hear me compliment him on it. A Select Committee should be a forum for exploring matters in depth and for seeking to inform debate elsewhere, as the Scottish Committee did well in the early years of its existence, when it examined important issues such as inward investment and Civil Service job dispersal. It should not be one more platform for adversarial politics, which it rapidly became.
The Opposition amendment displays a complete failure to grasp this important point. It speaks of the importance of a Select Committee
because of the damaging and unpopular policies being followed by Scottish Office Ministers".
That is not what Select Committees are all about. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood rightly said that a Select Committee would have been set up had the attitude of Opposition Members been more like what it was in the early 1979–83 Parliament and not what we have witnessed during the past few weeks. The Opposition amendment shows the increasingly high-handed and intolerant

attitudes of Scottish Labour Members since the general election last year. In the past 18 months they have shown themselves to be at best impatient with, and at worst intolerant of, all due parliamentary processes.
We have seen Front Bench spokesmen filibustering on the money resolution on the Transport Bill; the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) invading and disrupting a Standing Committee on the Housing Bill in the last Parliament; and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown) damaging the Mace, the symbol of the authority of the Crown in Parliament. We have seen Opposition Members suspended for abusing the procedures of the House; we have seen them seeking to restrict freedom of speech for other hon. Members participating in Scottish business. Only last night, the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) caused business to be suspended—not for the first time. That is what the Opposition have done in the past 18 months and that is the measure of their respect for parliamentary procedures.
It is no wonder that my hon. Friends have increasingly taken the view that a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs would be a pointless exercise—

Mr. Dobson: If the hon. Gentleman is so concerned about upholding the Standing Orders of the House, why is he a member of a Government who have failed to carry them out ever since the last election, by not setting up a Scottish Affairs Select Committee as required under the Standing Orders?

Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman was here when my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House gave the answer to precisely that point at the beginning of this debate.
Now Opposition Members talk increasingly about new devices and machinations, about conventions and shadow Select Committees in which, presumably, they will discuss the weather in Iceland or environmental conditions in the Himalayas. Because they cannot win the political arguments they have started to blame the political machinery. If their case about the Committee was to carry conviction they should have shown greater sensitivity to the procedures of the House and greater commitment to the unitary Parliament of the United Kingdom. It is not as if there is any lack of procedures for scrutinising the Scottish Office. There is the Public Accounts Committee and there are the activities of the other Select Committees—

Mr. Graham Allen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Lang: No, because I am short of time.
There are other Select Committees to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and my noble Friend the Minister of State have given evidence. All those opportunities exist, and there are the activities of the Scottish Grand Committee, with matter day debates and estimates debates. There are, therefore, opportunities for Scottish affairs to be scrutinised.
Despite what Opposition Members have said, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and the Committee of Selection have done their utmost to achieve a solution to the problem. No one could have done more to negotiate a solution on the setting up of the Scottish Affairs Committee. It is plain—and tonight's debate confirms it—that a solution is not available. We in the Scottish Office would have welcomed the setting up of such a Committee. Although there is no shortage of other forms of scrutiny,


the opportunity for close and detailed examination of specific aspects of activity would have been welcome. It is a matter not for the Government but for the House. The motion recognises that the House has not succeeded in finding a way through. I commend the motion to the House.
Amendment proposed, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
condemns in the strongest possible terms the failure of the Government to set up the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs and the irresponsible approach of Conservative Right honourable and honourable Members who have abdicated all responsibility for a Committee which is of particular importance to Scotland because of the damaging and unpopular policies being followed by the Scottish Office Ministers; and instructs the Committee of Selection to nominate sufficient members to allow the House to establish the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs under Standing Order No. 130.".—[Mr. Dobson.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 229, Noes 285.

Division No. 22]
[10 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Cryer, Bob


Allen, Graham
Cummings, John


Alton, David
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Anderson, Donald
Cunningham, Dr John


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Dalyell, Tam


Armstrong, Hilary
Darling, Alistair


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Ashton, Joe
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Dewar, Donald


Barron, Kevin
Dixon, Don


Battle, John
Dobson, Frank


Beckett, Margaret
Doran, Frank


Bell, Stuart
Douglas, Dick


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Duffy, A. E. P.


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Bermingham, Gerald
Eadie, Alexander


Bidwell, Sydney
Eastham, Ken


Blair, Tony
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Blunkett, David
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Boateng, Paul
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)


Boyes, Roland
Fatchett, Derek


Bradley, Keith
Fearn, Ronald


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Fisher, Mark


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Flannery, Martin


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Flynn, Paul


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Buchan, Norman
Foster, Derek


Buckley, George J.
Foulkes, George


Caborn, Richard
Fraser, John


Callaghan, Jim
Fyfe, Maria


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Galbraith, Sam


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Galloway, George


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Canavan, Dennis
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
George, Bruce


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Clay, Bob
Gordon, Mildred


Clelland, David
Gould, Bryan


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Graham, Thomas


Cohen, Harry
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Coleman, Donald
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Grocott, Bruce


Corbett, Robin
Hardy, Peter


Corbyn, Jeremy
Haynes, Frank


Cousins, Jim
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Cox, Tom
Heller, Eric S.


Crowther, Stan
Henderson, Doug





Hinchliffe, David
O'Brien, William


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
O'Neill, Martin


Holland, Stuart
Patchett, Terry


Home Robertson, John
Pendry, Tom


Hood, Jimmy
Pike, Peter L.


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Prescott, John


Howells, Geraint
Primarolo, Dawn


Hoyle, Doug
Quin, Ms Joyce


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Radice, Giles


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Randall, Stuart


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Reid, Dr John


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Richardson, Jo


Illsley, Eric
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Ingram, Adam
Robertson, George


Janner, Greville
Robinson, Geoffrey


Johnston, Sir Russell
Rogers, Allan


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Rooker, Jeff


Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Rowlands, Ted


Kennedy, Charles
Ruddock, Joan


Kilfedder, James
Salmond, Alex


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Sedgemore, Brian


Kirkwood, Archy
Sheerman, Barry


Lambie, David
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Lamond, James
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Leadbitter, Ted
Short, Clare


Leighton, Ron
Sillars, Jim


Lewis, Terry
Skinner, Dennis


Litherland, Robert
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Livsey, Richard
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Snape, Peter


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Soley, Clive


Loyden, Eddie
Spearing, Nigel


McAllion, John
Steel, Rt Hon David


McAvoy, Thomas
Steinberg, Gerry


Macdonald, Calum A.
Stott, Roger


McFall, John
Strang, Gavin


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Straw, Jack


McKelvey, William
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


McLeish, Henry
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


McTaggart, Bob
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


McWilliam, John
Turner, Dennis


Madden, Max
Vaz, Keith


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Wall, Pat


Marek, Dr John
Wallace, James


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Walley, Joan


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Wareing, Robert N.


Martlew, Eric
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Maxton, John
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Meacher, Michael
Wigley, Dafydd


Meale, Alan
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Michael, Alun
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Wilson, Brian


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Winnick, David


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Morgan, Rhodri
Worthington, Tony


Morley, Elliott
Wray, Jimmy


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)



Mowlam, Marjorie
Tellers for the Ayes:


Mullin, Chris
Mr. Allen Adams and


Murphy, Paul
Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie.


Nellist, Dave





NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)


Alexander, Richard
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Baldry, Tony


Amess, David
Batiste, Spencer


Amos, Alan
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony


Arbuthnot, James
Bellingham, Henry


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bendall, Vivian


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Ashby, David
Bevan, David Gilroy


Aspinwall, Jack
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Atkins, Robert
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Atkinson, David
Body, Sir Richard






Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gow, Ian


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gower, Sir Raymond


Boswell, Tim
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Bottomley, Peter
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Gregory, Conal


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Bowis, John
Grist, Ian


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Ground, Patrick


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Grylls, Michael


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Brazier, Julian
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Bright, Graham
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Britten, Rt Hon Leon
Hampson, Dr Keith


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hannam, John


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Browne, John (Winchester)
Harris, David


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Hawkins, Christopher


Buck, Sir Antony
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Budgen, Nicholas
Heddle, John


Burns, Simon
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Burt, Alistair
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Butcher, John
Hind, Kenneth


Butler, Chris
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Butterfill, John
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Carrington, Matthew
Hunter, Andrew


Carttiss, Michael
Irvine, Michael


Cash, William
Irving, Charles


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Jessel, Toby


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Jones, Robert B (Harts W)


Chapman, Sydney
Kirkhope, Timothy


Chope, Christopher
Knapman, Roger


Churchill, Mr
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Knowles, Michael


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Knox, David


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Lang, Ian


Colvin, Michael
Latham, Michael


Conway, Derek
Lawrence, Ivan


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Lee, John (Pendle)


Cope, Rt Hon John
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Cormack, Patrick
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Couchman, James
Lightbown, David


Cran, James
Lilley, Peter


Curry, David
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Lord, Michael


Day, Stephen
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Devlin, Tim
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Dickens, Geoffrey
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Dicks, Terry
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Dorrell, Stephen
Maclean, David


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
McLoughlin, Patrick


Dover, Den
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Dunn, Bob
Madel, David


Durant, Tony
Major, Rt Hon John


Eggar, Tim
Malins, Humfrey


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Mans, Keith


Evennett, David
Maples, John


Fallon, Michael
Marland, Paul


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Fishburn, John Dudley
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Forman, Nigel
Maude, Hon Francis


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Forth, Eric
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Fox, Sir Marcus
Mellor, David


Franks, Cecil
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Freeman, Roger
Miller, Sir Hal


French, Douglas
Mills, Iain


Fry, Peter
Miscampbell, Norman


Gale, Roger
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Gardiner, George
Mitchell, Sir David


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Moate, Roger


Gill, Christopher
Monro, Sir Hector


Glyn, Dr Alan
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Moore, Rt Hon John


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Morris, M (N'hampton S)





Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Moss, Malcolm
Squire, Robin


Neale, Gerrard
Stanbrook, Ivor


Needham, Richard
Steen, Anthony


Nelson, Anthony
Stern, Michael


Neubert, Michael
Stevens, Lewis


Nicholls, Patrick
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Stokes, Sir John


Norris, S.
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Sumberg, David


Oppenheim, Phillip
Summerson, Hugo


Page, Richard
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Paice, James
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Patnick, Irvine
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Patten, John (Oxford W)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Porter, David (Waveney)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Portillo, Michael
Thorne, Neil


Powell, William (Corby)
Thornton, Malcolm


Price, Sir David
Thurnham, Peter


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Tracey, Richard


Rathbone, Tim
Tredinnick, David


Redwood, John
Trippier, David


Renton, Tim
Trotter, Neville


Rhodes James, Robert
Twinn, Dr Ian


Riddick, Graham
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Waldegrave, Hon William


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Walden, George


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Roe, Mrs Marion
Waller, Gary


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Ward, John


Rost, Peter
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Rowe, Andrew
Warren, Kenneth


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Watts, John


Sackville, Hon Tom
Wells, Bowen


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Wheeler, John


Sayeed, Jonathan
Whitney, Ray


Shaw, David (Dover)
Widdecombe, Ann


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Wiggin, Jerry


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Wilshire, David


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Wolfson, Mark


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Wood, Timothy


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Woodcock, Mike


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Yeo, Tim


Shersby, Michael
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Sims, Roger
Younger, Rt Hon George


Skeet, Sir Trevor



Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Tellers for the Noes:


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Mr. Kenneth Carlisle and


Speller, Tony
Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory.


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Question accordingly negatived.

It being after Ten o'clock, MR. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to order [16 December], to put forthwith the Question on other amendments selected by him which were then moved.

Amendment proposed, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
expresses its belief in the need for a Scottish Affairs Committee with powers to call for persons, papers and records to ensure effective scrutiny of the Scottish Office and Scottish public affairs; notes with total dismay the lack of sufficient Conservative honourable Members willing to accept nomination to a Scottish Select Committee constituted in accordance with the conventional ratio of honourable Members supporting the Government to honourable Members on the Opposition benches; and accordingly instructs the Committee of Selection to nominate honourable Members of the Committee in the following proportion: five Labour, three Conservatives, two Social and Liberal Democrats and one Scottish National Party.".—[Mr. Livsey.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 226, Noes 286.

Division No. 23]
[10.13 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Flannery, Martin


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Flynn, Paul


Allen, Graham
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Alton, David
Foster, Derek


Anderson, Donald
Foulkes, George


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Fraser, John


Armstrong, Hilary
Fyfe, Maria


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Galbraith, Sam


Ashton, Joe
Galloway, George


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
George, Bruce


Barron, Kevin
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Battle, John
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Beckett, Margaret
Gordon, Mildred


Bell, Stuart
Gould, Bryan


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Graham, Thomas


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Bermingham, Gerald
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Bidwell, Sydney
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Blair, Tony
Grocott, Bruce


Blunkett, David
Hardy, Peter


Boateng, Paul
Haynes, Frank


Boyes, Roland
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Bradley, Keith
Heffer, Eric S.


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Henderson, Doug


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Hinchliffe, David


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Holland, Stuart


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Home Robertson, John


Buchan, Norman
Hood, Jimmy


Buckley, George J.
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Caborn, Richard
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Callaghan, Jim
Hoyle, Doug


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Canavan, Dennis
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Illsley, Eric


Clay, Bob
Ingram, Adam


Clelland, David
Janner, Greville


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Johnston, Sir Russell


Cohen, Harry
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Coleman, Donald
Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Kennedy, Charles


Corbett, Robin
Kilfedder, James


Corbyn, Jeremy
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Cousins, Jim
Kirkwood, Archy


Cox, Tom
Lambie, David


Crowther, Stan
Lamond, James


Cryer, Bob
Leadbitter, Ted


Cummings, John
Leighton, Ron


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Lewis, Terry


Cunningham, Dr John
Litherland, Robert


Dalyell, Tam
Livsey, Richard


Darling, Alistair
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Loyden, Eddie


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
McAllion, John


Dewar, Donald
McAvoy, Thomas


Dixon, Don
Macdonald, Calum A.


Dobson, Frank
McFall, John


Doran, Frank
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Douglas, Dick
McKelvey, William


Duffy, A. E. P.
McLeish, Henry


Dunnachie, Jimmy
McTaggart, Bob


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
McWilliam, John


Eadie, Alexander
Madden, Max


Eastham, Ken
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Marek, Dr John


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Fatchett, Derek
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Fearn, Ronald
Martlew, Eric


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Maxton, John


Fisher, Mark
Meacher, Michael





Meale, Alan
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Michael, Alun
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Short, Clare


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Sillars, Jim


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Skinner, Dennis


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Morgan, Rhodri
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Morley, Elliott
Snape, Peter


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Soley, Clive


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Spearing, Nigel


Mowlam, Marjorie
Steel, Rt Hon David


Mullin, Chris
Steinberg, Gerry


Murphy, Paul
Strang, Gavin


Nellist, Dave
Straw, Jack


O'Brien, William
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


O'Neill, Martin
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Patchett, Terry
Turner, Dennis


Pendry, Tom
Vaz, Keith


Pike, Peter L.
Wall, Pat


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Wallace, James


Prescott, John
Walley, Joan


Primarolo, Dawn
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Quin, Ms Joyce
Wareing, Robert N.


Radice, Giles
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Randall, Stuart
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Wigley, Dafydd


Reid, Dr John
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Richardson, Jo
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Wilson, Brian


Robertson, George
Winnick, David


Robinson, Geoffrey
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Rogers, Allan
Worthington, Tony


Rooker, Jeff
Wray, Jimmy


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Rowlands, Ted



Ruddock, Joan
Tellers for the Ayes:


Salmond, Alex
Mr. Alex Carlile and


Sedgemore, Brian
Mr. Geraint Howells.


Sheerman, Barry





NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)


Alexander, Richard
Browne, John (Winchester)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)


Amess, David
Buck, Sir Antony


Amos, Alan
Budgen, Nicholas


Arbuthnot, James
Burns, Simon


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Burt, Alistair


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Butcher, John


Ashby, David
Butler, Chris


Aspinwall, Jack
Butterfill, John


Atkins, Robert
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Atkinson, David
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Carrington, Matthew


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Carttiss, Michael


Baldry, Tony
Cash, William


Batiste, Spencer
Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Bellingham, Henry
Chapman, Sydney


Bendall, Vivian
Chope, Christopher


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Churchill, Mr


Bevan, David Gilroy
Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Body, Sir Richard
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Colvin, Michael


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Conway, Derek


Boswell, Tim
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Bottomley, Peter
Cope, Rt Hon John


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Cormack, Patrick


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Couchman, James


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Cran, James


Bowis, John
Curry, David


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Day, Stephen


Brazier, Julian
Devlin, Tim


Bright, Graham
Dickens, Geoffrey


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Dicks, Terry


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Dorrell, Stephen






Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Maclean, David


Dover, Den
McLoughlin, Patrick


Dunn, Bob
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Durant, Tony
Madel, David


Dykes, Hugh
Major, Rt Hon John


Eggar, Tim
Malins, Humfrey


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Mans, Keith


Evennett, David
Maples, John


Favell, Tony
Marland, Paul


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Fishburn, John Dudley
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Marshall, David (Portsmouth S)


Forman, Nigel
Maude, Hon Francis


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Forth, Eric
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Fox, Sir Marcus
Mellor, David


Franks, Cecil
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Freeman, Roger
Miller, Sir Hal


French, Douglas
Mills, Iain


Fry, Peter
Miscampbell, Norman


Gale, Roger
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Gardiner, George
Mitchell, Sir David


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Moate, Roger


Gill, Christopher
Monro, Sir Hector


Glyn, Dr Alan
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Moore, Rt Hon John


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Gow, Ian
Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)


Gower, Sir Raymond
Moss, Malcolm


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Neale, Gerrard


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Needham, Richard


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Nelson, Anthony


Gregory, Conal
Neubert, Michael


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Nicholls, Patrick


Grist, Ian
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Ground, Patrick
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Grylls, Michael
Norris, S.


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Oppenheim, Philip


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Page, Richard


Hampson, Dr Keith
Paice, James


Hannam, John
Patnick, Irvine


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Harris, David
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hawkins, Christopher
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Portillo, Michael


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Powell, William (Corby)


Heddle, John
Price, Sir David


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Rathbone, Tim


Hind, Kenneth
Redwood, John


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Renton, Tim


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Rhodes James, Robert


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Riddick, Graham


Hunter, Andrew
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Irvine, Michael
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Irving, Charles
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Jessel, Toby
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Kirkhope, Timothy
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Knapman, Roger
Rost, Peter


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Rowe, Andrew


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Knowles, Michael
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Knox, David
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lang, Ian
Shaw, David (Dover)


Latham, Michael
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lawrence, Ivan
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Lee, John (Pendle)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Shephard, Colin (Hereford)


Lightbown, David
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lilley, Peter
Shersby, Michael


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Sims, Roger


Lord, Michael
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Speller, Tony


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)





Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Squire, Robin
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Stanbrook, Ivor
Waldegrave, Hon William


Steen, Anthony
Walden, George


Stern, Michael
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Stevens, Lewis
Waller, Gary


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Ward, John


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Stokes, Sir John
Warren, Kenneth


Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Watts, John


Sumberg, David
Wells, Bowen


Summerson, Hugo
Wheeler, John


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Whitney, Ray


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Widdecombe, Ann


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Wiggin, Jerry


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wilshire, David


Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Wolfson, Mark


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Wood, Timothy


Thorne, Neil
Woodcock, Mike


Thornton, Malcolm
Yeo, Tim


Thurnham, Peter
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Tracey, Richard
Younger, Rt Hon George


Tredinnick, David



Trippier, David
Tellers for the Noes:


Trotter, Neville
Mr. Tom Sackville and


Twinn, Dr Ian
Mr.Michael Fallon.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment Proposed, to leave out from "recognises" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
'that Standing Order No. 130 names the Scottish Office as a principal government department which falls to be examined by a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, and states that the committee shall be appointed; notes that the wording of Standing Order No. 130 is mandatory notes that the Committee of Selection has failed to fully implement the Standing Order; notes that the reasons for including the Scottish Office within the scope of Standing Order No.130 remain valid; notes that no other select committee or any other available body such as the Scottish Grand Committee provides the investigative weight of a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs; notes that 67 Members for Scottish constituents are available to serve; and calls upon the Committee of Selection to implement the Standing Order forthwith.'.—[Mr. Wigley]

Question Put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 221, Noes 281

Division No. 24]
[10.27 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Buckley, George J.


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Caborn, Richard


Allen, Graham
Callaghan, Jim


Alton, David
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Anderson, Donald
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Armstrong, Hilary
Canavan, Dennis


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)


Ashton, Joe
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Clay, Bob


Battle, John
Clelland, David


Beckett, Margaret
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Bell, Stuart
Cohen, Harry


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Coleman, Donald


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Bermingham, Gerald
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Bidwell, Sydney
Corbyn, Jeremy


Blair, Tony
Cousins, Jim


Blunkett, David
Cox, Tom


Boateng, Paul
Crowther, Stan


Boyes, Roland
Cryer, Bob


Bradley, Keith
Cummings, John


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Cunningham, Dr John


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Dalyell, Tam


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Darling, Alistair


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Buchan, Norman
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)






Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
McKelvey, William


Dewar, Donald
McLeish, Henry


Dixon, Don
McTaggart, Bob


Dobson, Frank
McWilliam, John


Doran, Frank
Madden, Max


Douglas, Dick
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Duffy, A. E. P.
Marek, Dr John


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Eadie, Alexander
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Eastham, Ken
Martlew, Eric


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Maxton, John


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Meacher, Michael


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Meale, Alan


Fatchett, Derek
Michael, Alun


Fearn, Ronald
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Fisher, Mark
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Flannery, Martin
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Flynn, Paul
Morgan, Rhodri


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Morley, Elliott


Foster, Derek
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Foulkes, George
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Fraser, John
Mowlam, Marjorie


Fyfe, Maria
Mullin, Chris


Galbraith, Sam
Murphy, Paul


Galloway, George
Nellist, Dave


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
O'Brien, William


George, Bruce
O'Neill, Martin


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Patchett, Terry


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Pendry, Tom


Gordon, Mildred
Pike, Peter L.


Gould, Bryan
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Graham, Thomas
Prescott, John


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Primarolo, Dawn


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Randall, Stuart


Grocott, Bruce
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Hardy, Peter
Reid, Dr John


Haynes, Frank
Richardson, Jo


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Heffer, Eric S.
Robertson, George


Henderson, Doug
Robinson, Geoffrey


Hinchliffe, David
Rooker, Jeff


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Home Robertson, John
Rowlands, Ted


Hood, Jimmy
Ruddock, Joan


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Salmond, Alex


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Sedgemore, Brian


Howells, Geraint
Sheerman, Barry


Hoyle, Doug
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Short, Clare


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Sillars, Jim


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Skinner, Dennis


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Illsley, Eric
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Ingram, Adam
Snape, Peter


Janner, Greville
Soley, Clive


Johnston, Sir Russell
Spearing, Nigel


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Steinberg, Gerry


Kennedy, Charles
Strang, Gavin


Kilfedder, James
Straw, Jack


Kirkwood, Archy
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Lambie, David
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Lamond, James
Turner, Dennis


Leadbitter, Ted
Vaz, Keith


Leighton, Ron
Wall, Pat


Lewis, Terry
Wallace, James


Litherland, Robert
Walley, Joan


Livsey, Richard
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Wareing, Robert N.


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Loyden, Eddie
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


McAllion, John
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


McAvoy, Thomas
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Macdonald, Calum A.
Wilson, Brian


McFall, John
Winnick, David


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Wise, Mrs Audrey





Worthington, Tony
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wray, Jimmy
Mr. Dafydd Wigley and


Young, David (Bolton SE)
Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones.




NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Dickens, Geoffrey


Alexander, Richard
Dicks, Terry


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Dorrell, Stephen


Amess, David
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Amos, Alan
Dover, Den


Arbuthnot, James
Dunn, Bob


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Durant, Tony


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Dykes, Hugh


Ashby, David
Eggar, Tim


Aspinwall, Jack
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Atkins, Robert
Evennett, David


Atkinson, David
Fallon, Michael


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Favell, Tony


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Baldry, Tony
Fishburn, John Dudley


Batiste, Spencer
Fookes, Miss Janet


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Forman, Nigel


Bellingham, Henry
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bendall, Vivian
Forth, Eric


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Bevan, David Gilroy
Fox, Sir Marcus


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Franks, Cecil


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Freeman, Roger


Body, Sir Richard
French, Douglas


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fry, Peter


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gale, Roger


Boswell, Tim
Gardiner, George


Bottomley, Peter
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Gill, Christopher


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Glyn, Dr Alan


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bowis, John
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Gow, Ian


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Gower, Sir Raymond


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Brazier, Julian
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bright, Graham
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Gregory, Conal


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Grist, Ian


Browne, John (Winchester)
Ground, Patrick


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Grylls, Michael


Buck, Sir Antony
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Budgen, Nicholas
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Burns, Simon
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Burt, Alistair
Hampson, Dr Keith


Butcher, John
Hannam, John


Butler, Chris
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Butterfill, John
Harris, David


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Hawkins, Christopher


Carrington, Matthew
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Carttiss, Michael
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Cash, William
Heddle, John


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hind, Kenneth


Chapman, Sydney
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Chope, Christopher
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Churchill, Mr
Hunter, Andrew


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Irvine, Michael


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Irving, Charles


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Kirkhope, Timothy


Colvin, Michael
Knapman, Roger


Conway, Derek
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Cope Rt Hon John
Knowles, Michael


Cormack, Patrick
Knox, David


Couchman, James
Lang, Ian


Cran, James
Latham, Michael


Curry, David
Lawrence, Ivan


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Lee, John (Pendle)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Day, Stephen
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Devlin, Tim
Lightbown, David






Lilley, Peter
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lord, Michael
Shaw, David (Dover)


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Shelton, William (Streatham)


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Maclean, David
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Shersby, Michael


Madel, David
Sims, Roger


Major, Rt Hon John
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Malins, Humfrey
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Mans, Keith
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Maples, John
Speller, Tony


Marland, Paul
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Squire, Robin


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Maude, Hon Francis
Steen, Anthony


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stern, Michael


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stevens, Lewis


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Miller, Sir Hal
Stokes, Sir John


Mills, Iain
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Miscampbell, Norman
Sumberg, David


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Summerson, Hugo


Mitchell, Sir David
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Moate, Roger
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Monro, Sir Hector
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Temple-Morris, Peter


Moore, Rt Hon John
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)
Thorne, Neil


Moss, Malcolm
Thornton, Malcolm


Neale, Gerrard
Thurnham, Peter


Nelson, Anthony
Tracey, Richard


Neubert, Michael
Tredinnick, David


Nicholls, Patrick
Trippier, David


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Trotter, Neville


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Norris, Steven
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Oppenheim, Phillip
Waldegrave, Hon William


Page, Richard
Walden, George


Paice, James
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Patnick, Irvine
Waller, Gary


Patten, John (Oxford W)
Ward, John


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Porter, David (Waveney)
Warren, Kenneth


Portillo, Michael
Watts, John


Powell, William (Corby)
Wells, Bowen


Price, Sir David
Wheeler, John


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Whitney, Ray


Rathbone, Tim
Widdecombe, Ann


Redwood, John
Wiggin, Jerry


Renton, Tim
Wilshire, David


Rhodes James, Robert
Wolfson, Mark


Riddick, Graham
Wood, Timothy


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Woodcock, Mike


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Yeo, Tim


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Roe, Mrs Marion



Rossi, Sir Hugh
Tellers for the Noes:


Rost, Peter
Mr. Kenneth Carlisle and


Rowe, Andrew
Mr. Tom Sackville


Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Question accordingly negatived

Main Question Put:—

The House divided: Ayes 280, Noes 224.

Division No. 25]
[10·41 pm


AYES


Aitken, Jonathan
Amess, David


Alexander, Richard
Amos, Alan


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Arbuthnot, James





Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Fishburn, John Dudley


Ashby, David
Fookes, Miss Janet


Aspinwall, Jack
Forman, Nigel


Atkins, Robert
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Atkinson, David
Forth, Eric


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Fox, Sir Marcus


Baldry, Tony
Franks, Cecil


Batiste, Spencer
Freeman, Roger


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
French, Douglas


Bellingham, Henry
Fry, Peter


Bendall, Vivian
Gale, Roger


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Gardiner, George


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Gill, Christopher


Body, Sir Richard
Glyn, Dr Alan


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Boswell, Tim
Gow, Ian


Bottomley, Peter
Gower, Sir Raymond


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Bowis, John
Gregory, Conal


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Grist, Ian


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Ground, Patrick


Brazier, Julian
Grylls, Michael


Bright, Graham
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Browne, John (Winchester)
Hannam, John


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Buck, Sir Antony
Harris, David


Budgen, Nicholas
Hawkins, Christopher


Burns, Simon
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Burt, Alistair
Heddle, John


Butcher, John
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Butler, Chris
Hind, Kenneth


Butterfill, John
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hunter, Andrew


Carrington, Matthew
Irvine, Michael


Carttiss, Michael
Irving, Charles


Cash, William
Jessel, Toby


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Kirkhope, Timothy


Chapman, Sydney
Knapman, Roger


Chope, Christopher
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Churchill, Mr
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Knowles, Michael


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Knox, David


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Lang, Ian


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Latham, Michael


Colvin, Michael
Lawrence, Ivan


Conway, Derek
Lee, John (Pendle)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Cope, Rt Hon John
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Cormack, Patrick
Lightbown, David


Couchman, James
Lilley, Peter


Cran, James
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Curry, David
Lord, Michael


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Davis, David (Booth ferry)
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Day, Stephen
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Devlin, Tim
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Maclean, David


Dicks, Terry
McLoughlin, Patrick


Dorrell, Stephen
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Major, Rt Hon John


Dover, Den
Malins, Humfrey


Dunn, Bob
Mans, Keith


Durant, Tony
Maples, John


Dykes, Hugh
Marland, Paul


Eggar, Tim
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Evennett, David
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Favell, Tony
Maude, Hon Francis






Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Shersby, Michael


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Sims, Roger


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Miller, Sir Hal
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Mills, Iain
Speller, Tony


Miscampbell, Norman
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Mitchell, Sir David
Squire, Robin


Moate, Roger
Stanbrook, Ivor


Monro, Sir Hector
Steen, Anthony


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Stern, Michael


Moore, Rt Hon John
Stevens, Lewis


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Moss, Malcolm
Stokes, Sir John


Neale, Gerrard
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Nelson, Anthony
Sumberg, David


Neubert, Michael
Summerson, Hugo


Nicholls, Patrick
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Norris, Steven
Temple-Morris, Peter


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Oppeheim, Phillip
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Page, Richard
Thorne, Neil


Paice, James
Thornton, Malcolm


Patnick, Irvine
Thurnham, Peter


Patten, John (Oxford W)
Tracey, Richard


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Tredinnick, David


Porter, David (Waveney)
Trippier, David


Portillo, Michael
Trotter, Neville


Powell, William (Corby)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Price, Sir David
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Rathbone, Tim
Waldegrave, Hon William


Redwood, John
Walden, George


Renton, Tim
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Rhodes James, Robert
Waller, Gary


Riddick, Graham
Ward, John


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Warren, Kenneth


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Watts, John


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Wells, Bowen


Roe, Mrs Marion
Wheeler, John


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Whitney, Ray


Rost, Peter
Widdecombe, Ann


Rowe, Andrew
Wiggin, Jerry


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Wilshire, David


Sackville, Hon Tom
Wolfson, Mark


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Wood, Timothy


Sayeed, Jonathan
Woodcock, Mike


Shaw, David (Dover)
Yeo, Tim


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Younger, Rt Hon George


Shelton, William (Streatham)



Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Mr. David Heathcoat-Amery


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
and Mr. Michael Fallon.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Boateng, Paul


Allen, Graham
Boyes, Roland


Alton, David
Bradley, Keith


Anderson, Donald
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)


Armstrong, Hilary
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)


Ashton, Joe
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Buchan, Norman


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Buckley, George J.


Barron, Kevin
Caborn, Richard


Battle, John
Callaghan, Jim


Beckett, Margaret
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Bell, Stuart
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Canavan, Dennis


Bermingham, Gerald
Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)


Blair, Tony
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Blunkett, David
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)





Clay, Bob
Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)


Clelland, David
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Kennedy, Charles


Cohen, Harry
Kilfedder, James


Coleman, Donald
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Kirkwood, Archy


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Lambie, David


Corbyn, Jeremy
Lamond, James


Cousins, Jim
Leadbitter, Ted


Cox, Tom
Leighton, Ron


Crowther, Stan
Lewis, Terry


Cryer, Bob
Litherland, Robert


Cummings, John
Livsey, Richard


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Cunningham, Dr John
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Dalyell, Tam
Loyden, Eddie


Darling, Alistair
McAllion, John


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
McAvoy, Thomas


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Macdonald, Calum A.


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
McFall, John


Dewar, Donald
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Dixon, Don
McKelvey, William


Dobson, Frank
McLeish, Henry


Doran, Frank
McTaggart, Bob


Douglas, Dick
McWilliam, John


Duffy, A. E. P.
Madden, Max


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Eadie, Alexander
Marek, Dr John


Eastham, Ken
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Martlew, Eric


Fatchett, Derek
Maxton, John


Fearn, Ronald
Meacher, Michael


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Meale, Alan


Fisher, Mark
Michael, Alun


Flannery, Martin
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Flynn, Paul
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Foster, Derek
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Foulkes, George
Morgan, Rhodri


Fraser, John
Morley, Elliott


Fyfe, Maria
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Galbraith, Sam
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Galloway, George
Mowlam, Marjorie


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Mullin, Chris


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Murphy, Paul


George, Bruce
Nellist, Dave


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
O'Brien, William


Godman, Dr Norman A.
O'Neill, Martin


Gordon, Mildred
Patchett, Terry


Gould, Bryan
Pendry, Tom


Graham, Thomas
Pike, Peter L.


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Primarolo, Dawn


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Grocott, Bruce
Randall, Stuart


Hardy, Peter
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Haynes, Frank
Reid, Dr John


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Richardson, Jo


Heffer, Eric S.
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Henderson, Doug
Robertson, George


Hinchliffe, David
Robinson, Geoffrey


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Rogers, Allan


Holland, Stuart
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Home Robertson, John
Rowlands, Ted


Hood, Jimmy
Ruddock, Joan


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Salmond, Alex


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Sedgemore, Brian


Howells, Geraint
Sheerman, Barry


Hoyle, Doug
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Short, Clare


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Sillars, Jim


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Skinner, Dennis


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Smith Andrew (Oxford E)


Illsley, Eric
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Ingram, Adam
Snape, Peter


Janner, Greville
Soley, Clive


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Spearing, Nigel






Steel, Rt Hon David
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Steinberg, Gerry
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Stott, Roger
Wigley, Dafydd


Strang, Gavin
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Straw, Jack
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Wilson, Brian


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Winnick, David


Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Turner, Dennis
Worthington, Tony


Vaz, Keith
Wray, Jimmy


Wall, Pat
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Wallace, James



Walley, Joan
Tellers for the Noes:


Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Mr. Allen Adams and


Wareing, Robert N.
Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House recognises the inability of the Committee of Selection to nominate Members to serve on the Scottish Affairs Committee in accordance with Standing Order No. 104(2); welcomes the continued scrutiny of the Scottish Office by the Committee of Public Accounts, and the extent to which other select committees have been and will continue to be able within their orders of reference to take evidence from the Scottish Office and associated public bodies on matters arising in Scotland, and to report thereon; and notes that other

Parliamentary means exist for the consideration of Scottish affairs, including the Scottish Grand Committee, particularly in its consideration of Matters relating to Scotland and Estimates for which the Secretary of State for Scotland is responsible.

Dr. John Cunningham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand that in tonight's debate the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) referred to me. He did not give me notice that he intended to do so, but I have given him notice that I intend to raise this point of order. I understand that he used a phrase which went something like this: "Jocks running around like headless chickens," and attributed it to me. I want the hon. Gentleman to understand that, if I had referred to those events, I would have used much more colourful language. I ask him to accept that he has no evidence for attributing that phrase to me, and I hope that he will withdraw it.

Mr. Allan Stewart: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I fully accept that I was mistaken, and I wish to withdraw my reference to the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), with apologies.

Welsh Rate Support Grant

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Walker): This is the first debate particularly involving Wales for some 18 years which has not had the benefit of the attendance of our former colleague Brynmor John. I know that I speak for hon. Members on both sides of the House in expressing our deep regret at his death and his loss to Parliament.
He was a distinguished Minister and an articulate parliamentarian. He represented his constituency and Wales with great enthusiasm. To all of us who had the privilege of knowing him he was a civilised, kind and compassionate man. We deeply regret his premature death. For the past few years he had not been in good health, but, typical of Brynmor, he remained optimistic,
enthusiastic and energetic in all that he tried to do. His death was a great blow to his colleagues on the Opposition Benches who looked upon him, correctly, as a distinguished member of their party, but, like all great parliamentarians, he was a considerable loss to the House.
I beg to move,
That the Welsh Rate Support Grant Report 1989–90 (House of Commons Paper No. 32), a copy of which was laid before this House on 8th December, be approved.
I hope that it will be for the convenience of the House if we take with it the following motions:
That the Welsh Rate Support Grant Supplementary Report 1988–89 (House of Commons Paper No. 33), a copy of which was laid before this House on 8th December, be approved.
That the Welsh Rate Support Grant Supplementary (No. 2) Report 1987–88 (House of Commons Paper No. 34), a copy of which was laid before this House on 8th December, be approved.
That the Welsh Rate Support Grant Supplementary (No. 3) Report 1986–87 (House of Commons Paper No. 35), a copy of which was laid before this House on 8th December, be approved.

Mr. Speaker: I take it that that is the wish of the House.

Mr. Walker: Hon. Members will by now have had the opportunity to examine the reports and my statement to the House on 8 December. Therefore, I do not intend to repeat the details. The settlement for 1989–90 provides a fair and reasonable basis for local authorities to plan their budgets. All the main indicators in the settlement—provision for relevant and current expenditure and grant—are increased by more than the projected rate of inflation for the year. It offers the real hope of moderate rate increases if councils can restrain expenditure to realistic levels shown in the settlement.
It is also important to recognise that provision for capital spending is well ahead too, at 8·2 per cent. Taking account of current and capital together over the two years for which I have been responsible for local government in Wales, provision for local authority expenditure has increased by no less than £298 million, or 15·4 per cent.
Tonight is the last occasion on which we shall plough through the rate support grant process. No longer will we have these supplementary reports, sprinkled liberally with jargon of an intensity to make the sponsors of the Campaign for Plain English give up in despair. From April 1990 we move to the new arrangements under the Local

Government Finance Act and there will be an opportunity to debate my proposals for that financial year in due course.
The settlement includes provision of £9 million towards the revenue expenditure which district councils will incur in preparing for the new system. This is about double the Committee of Welsh District Councils' first estimate but, in fairness to it, its first estimate was based on inaccurate detail, I am glad to say pointed out by us. We disagree with their current revision up to £11 million, but I hope that the figure on which we have agreed will prove sensible.
In addition, capital allocations of £10·3 million have been distributed for next year. That sum is precisely equal to the amount that districts say that they expect to spend in the coming year on capital projects related to community charge preparation. It has been distributed in accordance with a method developed and recommended by the Committee of Welsh District Councils, and I am grateful for the manner in which the councils are preparing the arrangements for the new form of local taxation.
Local authorities in Wales know that they have an essential role to play in the task of building the economy of the Principality and strengthening its social framework. I am anxious that central Government and local government should continue to work together to ensure that those vital tasks are carried forward. Positive efforts have already been made, and the initiatives that have been taken are bearing fruit, but there is no time for complacency. We face the major challenge of the single European market in 1992, and county and district councils have a significant contribution to make in meeting that challenge.
Perhaps the councils' most important contribution lies in taking steps to ensure that the services that they provide encourage businesses in their areas to expand and develop. It is local government's attitude to planning, to the education of the work force and to the provision of essential infrastructure that underpins economic regeneration. I am confident that the good work being done by local councils in Wales in those vital areas will continue to bear fruit.
Economic development will, however, be hindered if councils fail to see that very large rate burdens deter potential investors and damage confidence. The need for further economic progress is one of our reasons for introducing the national non-domestic rate in 1990, which I believe will benefit business in Wales.
Taking aggregate Exchequer grants and rate rebates together, the Government have, in the 1989–90 settlement, contracted to meet 67 per cent. of councils' relevant expenditure. They have demonstrated a degree of commitment to meeting the needs of Wales which should now be matched by a determination on the part of local authorities to ensure that rates are held down to levels that provide the necessary services efficiently and at reasonable cost. That can best be achieved if they are lean and fit, and alert to the needs of their communities and the opportunities for progress that are open to them.
I am glad to say that the need for efficient provision of services has been recognised and acted upon by local authorities in Wales. Much has been done by them and by the Audit Commission to identify potential cost savings, but much more needs to be done to translate that potential into reality. The Audit Commission has identified possible efficiency savings of £42·4 million a year in Wales; only 28 per cent. of those savings have thus far been realised. In


taking their search for savings further, I trust that councils will ensure that they secure the substantial benefits achievable through opening up appropriate local authority services to the benefits of competition. I congratulate them on the progress they have made to date, but I think they will agree that there is still a great deal more to be achieved.
Altogether, in capital and revenue, we are talking about not even hundreds of millions but billions of pounds, figures perhaps beyond the comprehension of ordinary people. It is interesting to express them in terms that people understand. My proposals for the forthcoming year mean that local authority expenditure in the Principality will be some £37 per week per household in Wales, of which £25 will come from the Government grants, £7 will come from business and £5 from the domestic ratepayer. That vast local authority expenditure will provide vital services for the Principality. but the sums involved are very substantial.
As I said when I made the original announcements, I have never known an occasion when local authorities or Oppositions, be they Conservative or Labour, have applauded any rate support grant system or settlement for any year. When one looks in balance at the inflationary trends, when one looks in balance at what is going on and when one looks in balance at what will happen in Wales compared with other parts of the United Kingdom, one cannot complain about a situation in which each household in Wales will benefit from expenditure of £37 a week by local authorities, £25 of which will come from Government, £7 from business and £5 from the domestic ratepayers.
The settlement is a good one for Wales. It will make it possible for local government to meet its obligations in providing efficient services, while keeping rate increases low. I commend my proposals to the House.

Mr. Barry Jones: The Secretary of State referred to our late colleague, Mr. Bryn John. He spoke about him most sincerely and with insight. That is appreciated by the late Bryn John's right hon. and hon. Friends. He was exemplary as a constituency Member and he always guarded the interests of Pontypridd fiercely. I had the pleasure of serving in the last Labour Government alongside him. He was a superb Minister. He was very decisive, he was always well-informed and he was a civilised man. He was a strong Minister and was always on top of his brief. He always gave a lead. We knew him, too, as a man rooted in his family and in his community, which he loved. Nobody denied that he had integrity and courage —plenty of it—as well as independence and culture. He valued his Welsh heritage. It is no exaggeration to say to the House that he was a truly good man and a very disinguished parliamentarian. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
I know that the Secretary of State has not read the document because he has allowed paragraph 9 on page 30 to go out. It says:
These formulae comprise two straight lines: one of slope 3·5 x PGRE below the threshold and one of slope 5 x PGRE above it.
I could not expect him to read that, but he has put his signature to it and he deserves what he is going to get.
The Welsh counties do not see the settlement as the Secretary of State does. The Welsh counties together are

not an overtly political group, although they are shrewd and professionally advised. They are perturbed by the settlement. I shall summarise their worries. They were
bitterly disappointed that the Secretary of State had ignored their views as expressed in response to the Provisional Settlement and subsequently".
They cannot understand
how a settlement fixed in the context of comparatively low inflation and interest rates in the summer could still be considered reasonable in the circumstances which now exist".
They also say—and I agree:
The Settlement falls short by some £37·6m or 2·1 per cent. of the amount needed to deal with identified higher costs … and the increase in the GDP deflator from 4 per cent. to 5 per cent.
They also point out:
Providing for this minimum shortfall is likely to reduce the overall rate of grant from 64 per cent. to a little over 62 per cent. and to cause rate increases to be some 4 per cent. higher than they might otherwise have been.
That is why, according to the Welsh counties, the settlement is not a good one, although the Secretary of State has just said that it is.
The Government have conveniently overlooked the higher costs arising from the legislative pressure of, for example, the Education Reform Act, which enables the local financial management of schools and the reform of the curriculum. Where in the settlement are the prospects for more teachers in our high schools and our primary schools? Where are the prospects for halting closures and cuts in the nursery sector, for the widespread repair, refurbishment and decoration of our schools, and for the desperately needed textbooks, scissors, equipment, stationery, glue, erasers, pencils and Biros, which the worried young mothers and fathers, the parents of the youngsters at school, are looking for? Why does the settlement leave the counties in trouble when paying the police and firemen at 8 per cent., and the lecturers at 6 per cent.?
The Welsh district councils are responsible and representative. They say that despite the efforts that the councils, counties and districts will make to reduce costs, which will involve real cuts in services, spending in 1989–90 is likely significantly to exceed Government provision. They say that they face a stark choice between reducing services and service costs and increasing local district rate levels above the 6 per cent. predicted by the Welsh Office. Boroughs and districts will face great difficulties this year in bringing their average local rate levy increases down to the single figure that the Secretary of State wants and predicts.
Things are even worse than that might suggest. Welsh Office predictions for district councils' spending at the level that the Government want show that all but seven districts out of 37 could face local rises of more than 10 per cent. Welsh Office figures show that 19 Welsh districts—half the total number—could face local rate levy increases of between 14 and 21 per cent. for the district part of next year's rate.
Welsh Office figures show that a number of district councils will have particular difficulties setting next year's local rate and determining the level of local services. There are three such districts in Clwyd—Colwyn, Delyn and Glyndwr. In Gwynedd, most districts are affected: I name Aberconwy and Arfon. In Dyfed, the districts of Carmarthen and Llanelli face especial difficulties. In West Glamorgan, the districts of Lliw Valley and Swansea face problems, as does the Vale of Glamorgan in South


Glamorgan county. In Mid Glamorgan all six districts face major difficulties; particularly hard hit will be Ogwr and Taff-Ely. In Gwent, problems face Blaenau Gwent, Monmouth, Newport and Torfaen.
Overall, the Welsh associations believe that unless substantial cuts in services or savings in costs are made by councils, next year's average rate increase could be about 4 per cent. more than that predicted by the Welsh Office. If, as may happen, it is less in practice, that will be because local authorities have achieved savings, cut services or found reserves and balances to reduce their rate levies.
I remind the Secretary of State of the deep disappointment felt in the Welsh districts at his inability to come up with more money to help them face up to the challenge of the poll tax. That rankles in Wales. Even now, I ask him to reconsider, because the districts feel badly let down. No one in Wales wanted the poll tax, and the Secretary of State has told districts to implement it without providing them with the money with which to do so.
Our criticism of the settlement centres on its lack of realism. In the main, the right hon. Gentleman has today proposed the settlement that he promulgated as long ago as July. Its defect is that it has not been adjusted for the steep rise in the rate of inflation and interest rates or for the hike in wages and salaries. Our county and district councils are now stranded, sold short and facing demands to do much more on insufficient capital.
The settlement fails to provide for the higher costs arising from the legislative pressures of the poll tax and the Education Reform Act 1988 and from the increasing number of elderly and handicapped people who need ever more provision from social services departments. The settlement is at least £37 million—an important 2·1 per cent.—short of the amount needed to deal with identified higher costs. There is insufficient money to help the county and district councils to advance schemes to regenerate their local economies and to provide more jobs for local people. There is not enough money to tackle homelessness and the rapidly deteriorating and ramshackle housing in many valley communities.
The Opposition do not recognise the settlement that the Secretary of State outlined, nor do the counties or the districts, and soon our people will not. The settlement is a missed opportunity to repair and enhance the partnership between central and local government. It is a major disappointment which, because of its financial miscalculations, guarantees rate increases substantially higher than they might have been.
We have no hesitation in asking the House to reject the settlement and the Secretary of State to think again.

Sir Raymond Gower: I should tell the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) that the settlements made by the Labour Government were not always favourable to local government. During their latter three years in office, rate support declined by 16 per cent. in real terms. The hon. Gentleman should not criticise what, on balance, is a great effort to assist local authorities to meet their obligations.
The settlement that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has presented to the House is justified because there are disadvantages in many areas of Wales that merit

the support that has been given to the Principality. The amount provided by the Government is a high proportion of the total required, which means that a smaller burden will fall on the domestic ratepayer. But my right hon. Friend will be aware that the collapse of some of the industrial fabric, due to our former dependence on a narrow industrial base, has created peculiar problems. His support for rates in Wales is amply justified when compared with the support that is given to many other parts of the United Kingdom.
We are all pleased to see the amount of support that my right hon. Friend has announced for the valleys initiative. It is one of the biggest contributions that he and the Government could make to improving the fabric of life in the worst-affected parts of Wales. Does he believe that the councils will be able to make adequate provision for the initiative out of the amount that has been allocated to them under the rate support grant? I want the valleys initiative to succeed brilliantly, but I believe that the local authorities may need even more support if that is to be achieved. This goes to the nub of the problem of running local government. Such an initiative cannot be accomplished by central Government alone. It will require formidable support from local authorities and other bodies.
I agree with my right hon. Friend that the settlement is helpful, and I hope that it will enable the authorities in Wales not to levy excessive rates. On some occasions there have been excessive rates. I hope that that will not happen on this occasion because it would not be justified.

Mr. Richard Livsey: I wish to add my tribute to the late hon. Member for Pontypridd, Brynmor John. He was a compassionate man and a champion of Wales and his constituents. I got to know him when we were both agricultural spokesmen. He was well-informed and was always pleased to discuss matters with me at any time of day or late in the evening. He was a kind man and was friendly to me as a newer Member. I appreciated that. We feel his loss deeply.
There is no doubt that the rate support grant settlement is well behind inflation, although last July it was level pegging. Inflation next year is predicted at about 8 per cent. and the settlement will not match that. That must be a worry for local authorities affected by rate support grant. Inevitably, it will affect the level at which the rates are set, particularly when one takes account of the current high level of interest rates. What seemed reasonable in July seems doubtful now and will be untenable in 1989. A shortfall can be identified. About half the cost of setting up the poll tax collection system is allowed for in the settlement. Therefore, the settlement is not high enough. Why is it not higher?
The Secretary of State mentioned the national non-domestic rate. Many small businesses in Wales, particularly in rural Wales—shops, filling stations and so on—will be badly affected by the national non-domestic rate. People will be complaining about having to pay poll tax as individuals and the national non-domestic rate as a business. That will hit them hard because many of the businesses are finely balanced in terms of viability. They do not have the same volume of business as that found in some urban areas. However, some of the more rundown urban areas are also struggling. There is no doubt that it


will prove to be an unpopular measure, particularly when one realises that the non-domestic rates will be aggregated —collected in Cardiff and inadequately redistributed to areas where rates are low and where the economic activity is not sufficient to sustain the loss of the current business rates.
I was glad to hear that the capital side of the rate support grant will be at 8 per cent. In the past it has tended to lag behind. There are worries in relation to sparsity factors in rural Wales. I suspect that some of the calculations done by the Audit Commission relate to what is known as spare school places. As I have argued before, many small schools in sparsely populated areas may have some spare places in theory. However, it is too much to ask small children to move from one community to another because alternative schools are 12 or 15 miles away.
The school buildings maintenance programme faces a crisis. Last week I visited the Oxford road school in Llandrindod Wells. It is a primary school; 222 children attend the school. I found that the roof was leaking and that the school canteen was on the point of falling down; it had just been propped up the week before. Too many of our schools are in a similar state. Rain is pouring on to the lunches. That is not good enough. Powys hopes to sort out that problem, but a more generous rate support grant would have been of great assistance.
Less and less support is being provided for housing. It is almost negligible now. Are Ministers able to say what grant Tai Cymru will receive on 1 April? That new body will require substantial support if it is to tackle the major housing crisis in Wales.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Is there any item on which the hon. Gentleman is not prepared to spend a great deal more money, and does he have any suggestions as to where the hell it is to come from?

Mr. Livsey: The rate support grant has been declining over the years. A considerable injection of capital is required because the services that are provided to many of our communities have been run down.
Roads in Wales are among the most unsatisfactory that can be found anywhere in the United Kingdom. That is another good reason for an increase in the rate support grant in the next financial year. This is an inadequate settlement. A great deal more work needs to be done in Wales which would provide jobs for the people of Wales. They badly need those jobs.

Mr. Paul Flynn: The town of Newport has been uniquely punished by the settlement. Newport's block grant for 1989–90 is to be £5,810,000—a mere £245,000 higher than the grant for the current year, if the council spends precisely at the level that the Welsh Office is assuming for grant purposes. It represents an increase of 4·4 per cent. in grant, which is expected to cover inflation —the Government forecast that it will be 5·3 per cent.—the preparation costs for the community charge, which the Welsh Office estimate will amount to £450,000, and the library service in Newport, which is being transferred in April from Gwent county council at a cost of about £1 million.
Newport is sharply disappointed about the settlement. Just four weeks earlier the Welsh Office published provisional information about Newport's claim. The

Secretary of State said that these sums are sometimes beyond the comprehension of ordinary people, but the extraordinary people in the Welsh Office and in Government got their figures wrong to the tune of 55 per cent. The settlement means that Newport's grant for next year will be £318,000 lower than the previous settlement.
The grant settlement implies a rates increase of 16 per cent., if we disregard the libraries. We do not know whether the county council precept is to be reduced. If it is not, there will be a 21 per cent. rates increase. But it could be even worse. The Government's assessment of inflation at 5·3 per cent. appears very optimistic, especially as local authorities are affected mostly by pay inflation. Inflation is running at about 6·4 per cent., but pay inflation is about 9 per cent. Interest rates are high and seem set to remain high for a long time.
The Welsh Office has produced an arithmetic explanation for Newport's grant, but that has highlighted and concentrated attention on the Byzantine intricacy of the scheme. It may be thought reasonable to bamboozle members of the public and ratepayers, but it is not a good scheme if it manages to bamboozle the experts who administer it so that they produce an error of 55 per cent.
If Newport increases expenditure by 5·3 per cent. for inflation and adds the community charge preparation costs, the grant settlement implies a rate increase of at least 16 per cent. The Welsh Office consoled Newport council by saying that it was no worse off than 12 other Welsh councils. How do we square that with what the Secretary of State said about modest rate increases? We have to look to the transfer of the library services and perhaps the Secretary of State can tell us something about that when he replies.
For some 18 months we have had the experience of the Secretary of State for Wales in his intensive peregrinations around the country stirring up a manic optimism which has had a considerable effect in Wales. Last Friday the first national opinion poll showed that since the Secretary of State took office support for Labour has risen by a heartening 8 per cent. and support for the Conservative party has plummeted. There is a record number of Labour councillors on Newport borough council and Labour gained four seats in this year's election. That is not entirely due to the Secretary of State for Wales and his contribution to Welsh life, although he has contributed to the resurgence and consolidation of the strength of the Labour party in Wales. It is also due to the work of the local authorities. The Newport local authority has a splendid record of fine stewardship of the town's affairs, and providing good services at good value prices.
The people of Newport will not blame the local authority for the swingeing increases. They will point the finger for the unreal and unfair settlement at the Secretary of State. He is picking the pockets of the ratepayers in Newport.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I too associate myself with the remarks about the late Brynmor John. We offer our condolences to his family, and to the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside ( Mr. Jones), the Front Bench spokesman for the Labour party, who suffered a bereavement recently.
Last week when the Secretary of State made his statement in the House about the settlement, I asked him


why the expenditure sub-group of the Welsh Consultative Council on Local Government Finance had established a figure for the needs in Wales £13 million greater than the amount he is delivering. We are getting substantially less money than that committee thought necessary to meet the varying needs in Wales. The Secretary of State responded by saying that the sub-group did not include in its calculations the potential for improved efficiency. One can talk about improved efficiency year after year, but there is a danger of constantly expecting squeezes and cuts from local government. Ultimately that becomes counter-productive as the services that are so badly needed in Wales, particularly in areas where incomes are low and the dependency on the services is high, cannot be delivered.
Looking at the recommended settlement for 1989–90, the grant-related expenditure for district councils shows a very great variation from area to area in Wales. The average expenditure per capita is £106. Not surprisingly, the highest is Rhondda, with grant-related expenditure of £146 per capita recognising the very great needs in Rhondda. Monmouth is the lowest, spending £81 per capita. That shows a plus and minus around the mean of about 25 per cent. That is a very great fluctuation. It is surprising that in areas such as Montgomeryshire, with a figure of £81, there is rural deprivation. Areas such as the Lliw valley or Neath, which has urban problems, are well below the average.
As the scatter is so great for district functions, one is surprised at the great homogeneity in the determination of grant-related county council expenditure, to the exclusion of Powys. That is very high because of the rural nature of the area. The scatter of about £535 per capita is very tight. One wonders whether the mechanisms are sensitive enough to identify the needs of these areas and whether those needs are being met.
The Secretary of State spoke about the cost of local government services and about where the money came from. He came down to a residual figure of £5 per week per household. That may not be much in terms of the income levels in the south-east of England, but it must be related to the incomes in some of the poorer areas of Wales. In some of the housing association areas in my constituency the average income is £58 per week. To people on such incomes the figures mentioned by the Minister can be devastatingly high. I realise that such people would not pay the full rate, but even people on an income of £130 a week, which is £6,500 a year—that is the sort of average that one could find in my constituency—will pay the full poll tax. They are above the £125 cut off below which there will be some sort of reduction, and families on such incomes will find this a great imposition.
The Government will find it difficult to sell in Wales the cost of the poll tax administration to local government as well as its impact on those who will have to pay it. There will be considerable resentment.
I realise that housing benefit is not entirely the responsibility of the Welsh Office and does not come entirely within this sort of settlement. Local authorities in Wales will have to face the growing indebtedness of people who are finding it difficult to meet rent arrears. That is having a direct effect on local authority finance and must be taken on board.
The settlement deals with the future, and many social service changes will inevitably have an effect on county expenditure. We do not yet know where the Government intend to take us in response to the Griffiths and Whiteman reports. Inevitably, the Government have had to make some assumptions about that. They have also had to make assumptions about the movement of people from hospitals to community care. What are those assumptions and what additional resources will be given to the social services departments to meet them?
We also wonder about the full implementation of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986, the so-called "Tom Clarke Act." Sections 1, 2, 3 and 7 are vital and have still not been implemented. Has the money for implementing those sections been built into the settlement? There is no mention of that.
I accept that we have seen worse settlements, but many aspects of this one raise question marks, not least on the capital side. Those question marks are raised when one looks at the state of the roads, schools and buildings and the need for capital expenditure in many such areas. One wonders how long the capital side can be kept down without having to pay a long-term price.
The proposals and reports do not answer all the questions that people are asking, especially the questions about the maintenance of services for people who most depend on them. I should like to see in all parts of Wales less dependency on grants. I should like to see in each area an economy that is strong enough to allow us to be buoyant. We have not yet reached that state, but in the meantime I ask the Secretary of State to make sure that those most vulnerable do not miss out.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: The Secretary of State's Welsh rate support grant settlement is beginning to follow a pattern established by President Lyndon Johnson about 20 years ago. President Johnson made a speech announcing the great society and said:
From this moment on this Republic is going to declare war on poverty.
Thirty seconds later there was a telegram on the rostrum in front of him from the governor of West Virginia. It said: "Where do we surrender?"
The Secretary of State has said that he does not expect any applause from the Opposition. As far as Cardiff is concerned he is certainly right about that. There is disbelief at the fact that the Secretary of State has said nothing that will resolve the conflict over the missing £2·3 million in the rate support grant settlement for the financial year 1987–88. The Government retrospectively removed it from ratepayers and administrators, although they abided by the Government's rules.
Following correspondence with my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), who has more experience than I in these matters, the difference between Cardiff city council and the Welsh Office was narrowed, yet £2·3 million is at stake. Was Cardiff city council remiss in failing to send to the Welsh Office the closed books of its financial affairs for 1987–88? It sent them to the district auditor before 7 July, to the Ministers, to me as a local Member of Parliament but not to the Department. Should the Welsh Office, knowing that the council had closed its books, have shouted across the Welsh national war memorial gardens to the council,


"You have the figures that we need. We are bringing down the shutters on 7 July; you have closed your books, but bring them over to us and you will receive your £2·3 million"? As it stands, because of this nit-picking point, Cardiff's ratepayers will lose £2·3 million. Should we believe those completely unbelievable circumstances? I hope that the Secretary of State will resolve the problem tonight.

Mr. Paul Murphy: I offer our condolences to my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) on the loss of his father. We recognise that it was a considerable burden for him to return to the House today.
This has been a short but important debate. The rate support grant covers the main services in Wales such as education, housing and all the other matters that affect its people. It is interesting that today and a few weeks ago, the Secretary of State used the words "realistic" and "stable". He said that Welsh local authorities would be responsible and would make low rate rises in the months ahead. Having spent a decade as chairman of a finance committee of a Welsh local council, I know that its spending depended on three major factors beyond its control. Councils' spending is affected by the grant that the Secretary of State gives, which is 2 per cent. below inflation, by interest rates, which will rise in the future, and by pay rises. Rises of more than 8 per cent. are more likely than those envisaged in the settlement.
District councils have said for many years that the rate support grant settlement is an annual lottery, and that the money they obtain owes more to chance than precision. The 1987–88 settlement has destabilised at least a dozen local authorities such as Newport and others. The Secretary of State has gone against all accountancy practice and procedure by imposing an arbitrary cut-off point of midnight on 6 July. He should have used the final budget or outturn figures, but anyone with experience in local government knows that it was nonsensical to use the half-yearly review; there was no proper reflection of what local authorities were likely to spend.
By those decisions, the capital city of Wales will be many millions of pounds worse off. My local authority will this year, at a stroke, lose a quarter of its rate fund balances and, as a result of that decision, will have to increase its rates by at least 20 per cent. County councils tell us that rate rises will be at least 4 per cent. above inflation and of the 37 district councils in Wales at least 30 will have rate rises, many of which will be in double figures.
Inevitably under this Government, a great number of those councils will be valley local authorities which, by any measure of deprivation, will most need the rate support grant. The Secretary of State is boasting about his valleys initiative. It is some initiative when the rate support grant is being taken away from our valley councils.
The mean aspect of the settlement must be the poll tax. Local authorities in Wales asked for £17 million for capital allocation to implement the tax. They got £10 million. They asked for £14 million, spread over two years, for revenue expenditure. They got £5 million. They asked for a specific grant to cover the cost of the implementation of the poll tax. They got the block grant with all its vagaries. That is the measure by which the Secretary of State considers that local authorities can afford to implement that tax.
No Opposition Members are particularly displeased that this is the last rate support grant settlement. No one will mourn them. After all, they have been over-complex and, over the years, have been full of jargon and gobbledegook. Most significantly for the people of Wales, the settlements have consistently underfunded Welsh local government. There is not a shadow of doubt about that.
The Secretary of State tells us that things will improve. We believe that worse will follow. Wales will have to face a revenue support grant which, although simpler, is unquestionably more unfair. Wales will have to face a business rate which will give the Secretary of State much more power over local authorities and will break the important link between councils and local industry. Local authorities will have to face completely new housing revenue regimes, which will put rents way beyond the pockets of Welsh people. Above all else, the people of Wales will face an unwanted poll tax which must go down in history as the most unpopular measure in the Principality.
For all those reasons, it is no wonder that the Secretary of State's party lies well down in the polls in Wales. I urge the House to turn down the proposals.

Mr. Peter Walker: With the permission of the House, I will reply to the debate.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) on his first appearance on the Opposition Front Bench. He had a much more crowded House than I had for my first such appearance, when I was asked to wind up an Adjournment debate from the Opposition Front Bench. My hon. Friend who led the debate said that he would like me to add a few words prior to the Government replying, to give the Opposition's full support to his argument. As my hon. Friend spoke for 25 minutes of a 30-minute Adjournment debate, it was impossible for me to make any contribution. Although I disagree with much of what the hon. Gentleman said, I congratulate him on his first Front Bench appearance and the lucidity and fluency of his speech.
I join with the hon. Gentleman in extending the sympathy of the whole House to the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) for the personal loss that he suffered this week.
The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside spoke of district councils and their estimates of rate rises, and quoted the Welsh Office published figures in support. I do not blame him for using those figures, because the subject is complicated. However, they do not take into account a range of factors that affect rate rises. For example. I refer to the increase in rateable values, which were up by 1·4 per cent. last year as a result of all the extra business that has been attracted to Wales; the use that local authorities make of money held in balances to the benefit of their ratepayers—they used about £9 million of such balances last year; and the £5 million in additional rate support grant in the supplementary reports that we are debating. A range of factors mean that those figures no longer apply. I am sure that it was said unintentionally that our figures took no account of interest rate increases. In fact, an additional sum of about £14 million has been made available to take account of increased interest rates since my initial announcement. As I have explained previously, higher interest rates do not have the impact on local


authorities that some might think. That is because much of their borrowings are at fixed rates. Only a proportion of them are at current interest rate levels.
The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) talked about education, on which in this settlement there has been a substantial percentage increase in capital expenditure. Initial capital outlay has been increased by 17·4 per cent. The hon. Gentleman constantly draws our attention to the difficulties of reorganising rural schools, but with fewer pupils taking advantage of education in such establishments there is sense in rational reorganisation in many parts of Wales. The resultant capital outlay has been met in the figures that we have announced.
An additional £10 million in need assessment has been made available to Powys to take account of sparsity of population. That amounts to £100 for every person in the county. That factor has strongly been taken into account.
My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Sir R. Gower) talked about the valleys. The rate support grant system is based upon needs assessment calculations, and the grant is already skewed to take account of areas such as the valleys. On the capital side, extra provision can be made available for certain areas. In this respect the valleys have done well this year, with extra allocations for housing and transport. Allocations have yet to be announced for the urban programme, but there will be extra provision for the valleys.
The introduction of the new business rate in the valleys will bring a benefit of about £8·5 million each year. That will be the reduction of their rating burden. That must be good news for employment prospects.
The hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) made his usual vigorous and lively attack on all that has taken place. If he is dissatisfied with the settlement, I dread to think what he would have said if he had been a Member of this place when Conservative Members were in opposition from 1974 to 1979. The hon. Gentleman expressed dissatisfaction with the settlement's relationship to inflation, but current expenditure during 1974–79 decreased virtually every year. There was only a slight increase—it was not large enough to offset the decreases—in the year before the general election. There was a considerable reduction in capital expenditure, which amounted to about 50 per cent. in real terms. I am glad that Newport enjoys an ever-expanding economy and considerable new inward investment.
The Newport library has had an effect on rates. Newport asked for the library to be taken from the county so that is could organise it, which means that it will have an impact on the district rate rather than the county rate. As the ratepayer pays both the county and the district rates, the ratepayer overall will benefit if Newport organises the library more efficiently and effectively. The result, however, will be an increase in rates.
I understand that Cardiff Members are aggrieved that a line drawn on a certain date had an adverse effect on their city. We have now received the final expenditure figures of 31 of the 45 Welsh local authorities, and we know that 14 will have gained grant as a result of drawing the line on that date. Of the remainder, 13 have lost grant and four have not had their figures changed.
It seems extraordinary that not one hon. Member who represents any of the 14 local authorities which have

gained from drawing the line in that way has said, "For heaven's sake, do not alter that. Let us adhere to that date." I believe it was necessary to draw the line at a certain date, and it so happens that some authorities have gained and some have lost.

Mr. Barry Jones: Which local authority has gained £2·3 million?

Mr. Walker: I agree that the biggest loser was Cardiff. I do not deny that at all. But the figures were not sent in by Cardiff until long after the date, and Cardiff has been treated in the same way as every other local authority in the United Kingdom. I am glad to say that the rate support grant for Cardiff in the coming year is generous, and I do not believe there is any need for very inflationary rate rises in Cardiff this year.
As always happens on these occasions, Oppositions—be they Conservative or Labour—are, rightly, critical of the rate support grant. I would only say that in relation to inflation and the expansion of the Welsh economy, this is a perfectly reasonable and sensible settlement, and I urge my hon. Friends to support it.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 237, Noes 212.

Division No. 26]
[11.56 pm


AYES


Aitken, Jonathan
Chapman, Sydney


Alexander, Richard
Chope, Christopher


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Churchill, Mr


Amos, Alan
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Arbuthnot, James
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Conway, Derek


Ashby, David
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Aspinwall, Jack
Cope, Rt Hon John


Atkins, Robert
Couchman, James


Atkinson, David
Cran, James


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Curry, David


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Baldry, Tony
Day, Stephen


Batiste, Spencer
Devlin, Tim


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Dickens, Geoffrey


Bellingham, Henry
Dicks, Terry


Bendall, Vivian
Dorrell, Stephen


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Dover, Den


Body, Sir Richard
Dunn, Bob


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Durant, Tony


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Dykes, Hugh


Boswell, Tim
Eggar, Tim


Bottomley, Peter
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Evennett, David


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Fallon, Michael


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Favell, Tony


Bowis, John
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Fishburn, John Dudley


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Fookes, Miss Janet


Brazier, Julian
Forman, Nigel


Bright, Graham
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Forth, Eric


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Fox, Sir Marcus


Buck, Sir Antony
Franks, Cecil


Budgen, Nicholas
Freeman, Roger


Burns, Simon
French, Douglas


Burt, Alistair
Fry, Peter


Butler, Chris
Gale, Roger


Butterfill, John
Gardiner, George


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Carrington, Matthew
Gill, Christopher


Carttiss, Michael
Glyn, Dr Alan


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Gow, Ian






Gower, Sir Raymond
Porter, David (Waveney)


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Portillo, Michael


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Powell, William (Corby)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Price, Sir David


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Grist, Ian
Rathbone, Tim


Grylls, Michael
Redwood, John


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Renton, Tim


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Rhodes James, Robert


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Riddick, Graham


Hannam, John
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Hawkins, Christopher
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Roe, Mrs Marion


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Rost, Peter


Hind, Kenneth
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Hunter, Andrew
Sayeed, Jonathan


Irvine, Michael
Shaw, David (Dover)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Knapman, Roger
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Knowles, Michael
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Knox, David
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lang, Ian
Shersby, Michael


Latham, Michael
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lee, John (Pendle)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Lightbown, David
Speller, Tony


Lilley, Peter
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lord, Michael
Squire, Robin


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Stanbrook, Ivor


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Steen, Anthony


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Stern, Michael


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Stevens, Lewis


Maclean, David
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Major, Rt Hon John
Stokes, Sir John


Malins, Humfrey
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Mans, Keith
Sumberg, David


Maples, John
Summerson, Hugo


Marland, Paul
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Maude, Hon Francis
Thornton, Malcolm


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Thurnham, Peter


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Tracey, Richard


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Trippier, David


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Twinn, Dr Ian


Miller, Sir Hal
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Mills, Iain
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Walden, George


Mitchell, Sir David
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Moate, Roger
Waller, Gary


Monro, Sir Hector
Ward, John


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Moore, Rt Hon John
Warren, Kenneth


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Watts, John


Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)
Wells, Bowen


Moss, Malcolm
Wheeler, John


Neale, Gerrard
Whitney, Ray


Neubert, Michael
Widdecombe, Ann


Nicholls, Patrick
Wood, Timothy


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Woodcock, Mike


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Yeo, Tim


Norris, Stephen
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley



Page, Richard
Tellers for the Ayes:


Paice, James
Mr. Alan Howarth and


Patnick, Irvine
Mr. John M. Taylor.


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Archer, Rt Hon peter


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Armstrong, Hilary


Allen, Graham
Ashton, Joe


Anderson, Donald
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)





Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Graham, Thomas


Barron, Kevin
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Battle, John
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Beckett, Margaret
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Bell, Stuart
Grocott, Bruce


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Hardy, Peter


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Bermingham, Gerald
Heffer, Eric S.


Bidwell, Sydney
Henderson, Doug


Blair, Tony
Hinchliffe, David


Blunkett, David
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Boateng, Paul
Holland, Stuart


Boyes, Roland
Home Robertson, John


Bradley, Keith
Hood, Jimmy


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Howells, Geraint


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Hoyle, Doug


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Buchan, Norman
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Buckley, George J.
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Caborn, Richard
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Callaghan, Jim
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Illsley, Eric


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Ingram, Adam


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Janner, Greville


Canavan, Dennis
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Clay, Bob
Lambie, David


Clelland, David
Lamond, James


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Leadbitter, Ted


Cohen, Harry
Leighton, Ron


Coleman, Donald
Lewis, Terry


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Litherland, Robert


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Livsey, Richard


Corbyn, Jeremy
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Cousins, Jim
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Cox, Tom
Loyden, Eddie


Crowther, Stan
McAllion, John


Cryer, Bob
McAvoy, Thomas


Cummings, John
Macdonald, Calum A.


Cunliffe, Lawrence
McFall, John


Cunningham, Dr John
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Darling, Alistair
McKelvey, William


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
McLeish, Henry


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
McTaggart, Bob


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
McWilliam, John


Dewar, Donald
Madden, Max


Dixon, Don
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Dobson, Frank
Marek, Dr John


Doran, Frank
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Douglas, Dick
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Martlew, Eric


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Maxton, John


Eadie, Alexander
Meacher, Michael


Eastham, Ken
Meale, Alan


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Michael, Alun


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Fatchett, Derek
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Fearn, Ronald
Morgan, Rhodri


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Morley, Elliott


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Flannery, Martin
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Flynn, Paul
Mowlam, Marjorie


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Mullin, Chris


Foster, Derek
Murphy, Paul


Foulkes, George
Nellist, Dave


Fraser, John
O'Brien, William


Fyfe, Maria
O'Neill, Martin


Galbraith, Sam
Patchett, Terry


Galloway, George
Pendry, Tom


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Pike, Peter L.


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


George, Bruce
Prescott, John


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Primarolo, Dawn


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Quin, Ms Joyce


Gordon, Mildred
Randall, Stuart


Gould, Bryan
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn






Reid, Dr John
Straw, Jack


Richardson, Jo
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Robertson, George
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Robinson, Geoffrey
Turner, Dennis


Rogers, Allan
Vaz, Keith


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Wall, Pat


Rowlands, Ted
Wallace, James


Ruddock, Joan
Walley, Joan


Salmond, Alex
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Sedgemore, Brian
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Sheerman, Barry
Wigley, Dafydd


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Short, Clare
Wilson, Brian


Skinner, Dennis
Winnick, David


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)
Worthington, Tony


Snape, Peter
Wray, Jimmy


Soley, Clive
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Spearing, Nigel



Steinberg, Gerry
Tellers for the Noes:


Stott, Roger
Mr. Robert N. Wareing and


Strang, Gavin
Mr. Frank Haynes.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Welsh Rate Support Grant Report 1989–90 (House of Commons Paper No. 32), a copy of which was laid before this House on 8th December, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Welsh Rate Support Grant Supplementary Report 1988–89 (House of Commons Paper No. 33), a copy of which was laid before this House on 8th December, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Welsh Rate Support Grant Supplementary (No. 2) Report 1987–88 (House of Commons Paper No. 34), a copy of which was laid before this House on 8th December, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Welsh Rate Support Grant Supplementary (No. 3) Report 1986–87 (House of Commons Paper No. 35), a copy of which was laid before this House on 8th December, be approved.—[Mr. Fallon.]

Ministerial and Other Salaries

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): I beg to move,
That the draft Ministerial and Other Salaries Order 1988, which was laid before this House on 8th December, be approved.
I hope that I need not detain the House for long on this matter. I shall briefly outline the changes that we are proposing and will hope to deal with any other points requiring an answer at the end of the debate.
As hon. Members will know, under the terms of the resolution of 21 July 1987, all Members will receive an increase in their parliamentary salary on 1 January 1989. The draft order which I laid in the House on 8 December determines the revised salaries proposed for Ministers and paid office holders from the same date.
On Thursday 8 December, in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), I set out in detail in a written answer all the changes that we envisage. The average increase in salaries in this House will be 4 per cent. and a little over 6 per cent. in the other place. The average for the proposed package as a whole is 4·5 per cent.
All Ministers and paid office holders in the House will receive an increase of £322 in their official salary. Together with the £1,237 increase in their reduced parliamentary salary which they receive automatically on 1 January 1989, they will thus receive a total of £1,559. That is, of course, the same cash increase as hon. Members will receive in their salaries. We propose also that all Government Whips should receive a further £200, which should go some way to protect their position as against that of Back Benchers. Traditionally, the salary of Assistant Opposition Whips is linked to that of Government Whips, and we propose that it should be increased by an additional £200, so that the link is maintained.
In the other place, we propose that Ministers and paid office holders should receive the full £1,559 in their official salary because they, of course, have no parliamentary salary. To narrow the salary differential between Ministers in this place and those in the other place, we propose that Ministers of State and Parliamentary Under-Secretaries should receive an additional £800 and £400 respectively. We also propose that Lords in Waiting should receive an additional £200. To maintain salary linkages that we have adopted following past Top Salaries Review Body recommendations, some other paid office holders in the other place will also receive additional increases.
The increases in salaries amount to about £81,000 and, against the background of a 6·9 per cent. increase in parliamentary salaries, cannot be described as excessive. I believe that our proposals represent a modest, fair and realistic settlement, and I commend my motion to the House.

Mr. Dave Nellist: The Leader of the House said that he would not detain the House for long, and I think that that is right. There is little justification for these increases. I find it interesting, if not ironic, that in the past two or three weeks we have been told by leading members of the Government here and in the other place that increases of £8, £9 or £10 a week in the wages of


low-paid workers are inflationary. Increases in Ministers' salaries of £30 a week are apparently not inflationary and should be agreed by the House.
I should like briefly to refer to three groups of people on whom I feel that this money would be better spent. First, there are the young people, many of whom—if they are aged between 16 and 18—will in a week's time be receiving no money whatever. A few days ago I raised in the House the case of a young lad from Coventry, Terry Flowers, a few days from his 18th birthday. He has received no money from the DSS for the past seven weeks, and has been told that his only salvation is to approach the Salvation Army hostel. His mam is on income support, and because he is 17—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I must remind the hon. Gentleman that the motion deals with the draft Ministerial and Other Salaries Order, and that it is not in order to widen the debate to cover the points to which the hon. Gentleman is now referring.

Mr. Nellist: I ask you to reconsider that decision, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If I were to seek to divide the House on this question, I would have to lay before hon. Members the reasons why I wished them not to vote in favour of the order. The brief case that I hope to make is that there are three groups—among many others—on whom the money could be better spent. That has been seen in the past as a justifiable argument against passing an increase in the salaries of Members of Parliament in this or the other place.
Young people of 16 to 18 who are receiving no money this Christmas are, in my view, more appropriate recipients of the £30 a week increase—£1,500 a year—that is going to Ministers. Terry Flowers was never going to get a YTS place, although the social security Minister said that it was always on offer for him. A 16-year-old with two years ahead of him is more likely to be chosen for a YTS place than someone seven weeks away from his 18th birthday.
Every hon. Member will, I believe, have received a copy of a pamphlet and a letter from the National Children's Home giving a number of other examples. Apparently we, as Members of Parliament, have decided that come Christmas such young people are not entitled to any money, but that Ministers should receive an increase.
In my own city of Coventry, there are young people on low wages, students and others on youth training schemes. Because of other decisions of the House, people on a second-year YTS income of £36 a week—a fraction above the increase that we are discussing—after they have paid rent for a council bedsit and likely charges for heating and lighting are left with £17 a week for food and clothing, even after rent rebates. That is half the increase in ministerial salaries that we are asked to vote for. I could give other examples of low-paid workers and students in the city of Coventry.
The second group that I wish to mention briefly is the pensioners. My early-day motion 204 referred to the case of an 82-year-old former miner in the Warwickshire area. Because of a mistaken non-declaration of a £3 colliery pension in 1975, he has been asked to pay back £10 each week—one third of the increase that Ministers have been offered—until 1996. He is 82 years old, but the Department of Social Security is taking £3,067 off him because of a mistake with a pension. Yet tonight we are

asked to give half that sum—£1,559—to the same Ministers who refused charity to Mr. Harry Rider. It is ironic that there is a doctor in Coventry who apparently overclaimed £42,000 in expenses, yet the same Ministers are talking about writing off those expenses while they ask Harry Rider to pay back £10 a week.
My early-day motion 162 deals with pensions as a whole. I would argue that instead of spending hundreds of pounds on Ministers, we should allocate a similar amount to the pensioners, whose £10 Christmas bonus, had it not been frozen over the past decade and a half—[Interruption.] Hon. Members are intimating that that was not uprated under the last Labour Government. I agree with that criticism. I was not a Member of the House then, but I was the chairman of a constituency Labour party that protested at the action of that Labour Government. If nothing else, I plead guilty to the crime of consistency. If that uprating had taken place, in the same way as the uprating of ministerial salaries, pensioners would receive a £73 Christmas bonus, not a £10 bonus.
The last group of people whom I wish to mention—although I could have picked other low-paid groups such as nurses for consideration for equal largesse and generosity from the Government—as a reason for not supporting the order are the families who face the next five days in the run-up to Christmas with income support as their only income. I do not expect to change the minds of Tory Members, but I recommend them, if they have no other reading this Christmas, to read The Guardian of 14 December, and the article by Carol Irvine, a mother of three children who, with her husband Bob, is facing Christmas on the Easterhouse estate in Glasgow. She is trying to bring up that family on £61·19 a week after rent and electricity charges. At the end of a seven-day cycle, she describes how she faces the last day on 82p. Which Tory Member here tonight, if there were to be a vote on the order, would go through the Lobbies with a clear conscience about giving Ministers—some Cabinet Ministers are already on £1,000 a week—a rise of £30 a week, when families on the Easterhouse estate, estates in my constituency such as Willenhall, Stoke, Hillfields and Cheylesmore, and other estates in the country, are expected on the day before Christmas to bring some Christmas joy on 82p?
The House should reject the order, but I suspect that it will not. The House and the country will be the poorer for that decision.

Mr. Bob Cryer: I have never understood why Ministers are paid anything extra. Members' salaries have now reached a level that is higher than that of most of our constituents. Ministers should receive the parliamentary salary and be satisfied with that. After all, they have the use of cars, offices and in some cases houses—albeit tied houses—which are part of the arrangement. So Ministers already have advantages. People say that they have extra responsibilities, but I suspect that hon. Members on both sides would be prepared to accept those responsibilities. We are not here for financial reward; most hon. Members are here because of their political ideology. The responsibilities of Government arise from a desire to put into effect these


political ideologies. There is nothing wrong with that; it just so happens that the present Government's ideology is wrong.
The notion that we should pay Ministers extra is wholly mistaken and should be re-examined. People might say that no one in the House does anything extra without being paid additional money for it, but that is not so. For example, Standing Committees, whose proceedings are often long and tedious and last all night, are chaired by Members of the House who receive no extra remuneration for it. The only advantage they derive from this duty is that they are more likely to be called at Question Time because they are part of the charmed and magic circle on the Chairmen's Panel.

Mr. Nicholas Baker: Does the hon. Gentleman think that people who perform important jobs, such as being the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, should be paid more too?

Mr. Cryer: I am saying that members of the Chairmen's Panel are paid nothing; and that people who do obscure, humdrum but necessary jobs such as being the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments should get nothing, either. I dare say the hon. Gentleman will view what I say with cynicism, but I do the job because someone in the House must examine Statutory Instruments, although it is a dull, boring and often repetitive task.
The Leader of the House will acknowledge that I have written to him to say that someone in the House should examine the codes of practice which are being spewed out by Government Departments. I do not expect such a person to be paid extra for examining them and determining whether Ministers are abusing their positions or providing clear guidance—

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Cryer: In a moment.
The House and the Government should not mirror the executive market place, in which the only measure of a person's worth and contribution to society is the amount of money he earns. The salaries in the executive market place are astronomical compared with what ordinary people earn in their work places. Ministerial and City salaries seem grotesquely out of proportion—

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: When the hon. Gentleman was a Minister in the last Labour Government, did he hold this philosophy, or has he developed it only since becoming a Back Bencher?

Mr. Cryer: I received a Government salary for the two years during which I was a member of the Government. Of course there are inconsistencies—[Laughter.] No hon. Member can claim that he has been 100 per cent. consistent in all his actions inside and outside this place. Some of us argued about the narrowing of differentials. The salaries when I was a Minister were very much smaller, and differentials between Members' and Ministers' salaries were narrower. This Government have greatly broadened those differentials.
If we are to develop a greater sense of justice and a better society we must narrow differentials, not broaden them. In a successful co-operative like Scott Bader in the

midlands, which has about 200 co-operators working there, the salary differentials have a range of 4 : 1. That is the sort of range for which we should aim in society as a whole. That is one of the basic problems of society and an ideological matter about which we argue bitterly from time to time. The order does not help matters. People will reflect that the Government are out of touch with ordinary people because, for one thing, Ministers are insulated by the huge salaries that they receive.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I have been a trade unionist for many years. In view of what Mr. Delors has said in relation to the Single European Act, with 80 per cent. of power being moved to the Council of Ministers in Brussels, should we not be talking about a substantial increase for Ministers and an 80 per cent. cut in the salaries of Members of Parliament?

Mr. Cryer: "I'm all right Jacques" Delors is a well-paid man. He is on £90,000 a year plus expenses and the other accoutrements of office. He is arguing from a position of enormous income—

Mr. Teddy Taylor: He is making the decisions.

Mr. Cryer: He is making many decisions now, and he claims that he will make many more in the future. I believe that the Commissioners should be paid no more than the members of our Government are paid. No member of the British Government, including the Prime Minister and the Lord Chancellor, who has a high salary, has a salary which approaches the salary of Jacques Delors. The Common Market is out of touch with reality in many respects, and that is one example.

Mr. Roger Knapman: Does the hon. Gentleman extend his argument to Members of Parliament who are also Members of the European Parliament?

Mr. Cryer: This matter is always raised with me. It is an intimidating factor for me, but I will not allow the fact that for the few months until June I shall be a Member of the European Assembly, and receive one third extra salary —[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] I do not know why hon. Members say that. I have said this almost every time that I have talked about incomes. That salary is declared in the Register of Members' Interests and, after tax, is divided between the Sheffield and Labour movements. I get no advantage from the extra salary, which I do not like. I should have preferred to have a by-election when I was elected to this Parliament, but that was not possible. But even if every Conservative Member stood up and made an accusation against me, it would not prevent me from talking about incomes or from criticising the Common Market and all its works. I have been part of the Common Market and that has strengthened my view that it is a shambolic organisation. Britain would be better out of it. But I shall not pursue that argument, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because it may attract your wrath.
Despite the difficulty that I have experienced in advancing my argument, I repeat that these ministerial salaries are excessive. My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) talked about people who experience great financial difficulties. The order will make the Government seem even more remote and


isolated. It will bring home to ordinary people the fact that Ministers make decisions on insulated experience, not on experience shared with the vast mass of people.

Mr. Ian Gow: I have good news for you, Mr. Deputy Speaker; my speech will be short.
The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) used to represent the constituency of Keighley from which he was dismissed. He would have carried more credibility in the House if he had proclaimed the truth. When he was a Minister of the Crown, he accepted from the Crown a salary higher than that he received as a Member of the House. I remind the hon. Gentleman and the House of the advice given by Polonius to Laertes:
This, above all: to thine own self be true … Thou canst not then be false to any man.

Mr. Wakeham: Nothing I have heard from the two Opposition Members has persuaded me that the order is anything but modest.
The hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) is at least consistent. He makes speeches such as that he made tonight on any occasion that he considers to be appropriate. He says what he believes. An increase in ministerial salaries which totals £81,000 is not relevant when we are considering a total social security budget in Britain of £52 billion. That is not the way to deal with the problems he sought to raise.
The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) did not even pretend to be consistent. I agree with him that the salaries of Members of Parliament are more reasonable than they were when he and I first came to the House. I do not think that his view is shared widely in the House, not even by his own party. The Leader of the Opposition and

some Opposition Members are office holders who will receive the modest increase if the order is passed by the House. I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Ministerial and Other Salaries Order 1988, which was laid before this House on 8th December, be approved.

PETITION

Truro (Flooding)

Mr. Matthew Taylor: I beg to ask leave to present a petition signed by 5,193 citizens of Truro whose town centre has been devastated twice this year by flooding. The flooding has been caused by inadequate land drainage provision, which could have been alleviated with the proper resources. The flooding threatened lives and caused devastation and distress to individuals and businesses in Truro. In addition, it has threatened future development in the town centre.
The two floods could have been avoided but the South West water authority does not have the funds necessary to deal with the problem. I ask for adequate funding on behalf of the people of Truro before they suffer further damage to persons and possessions. I also ask for compensation for those who have suffered—many of whom have suffered twice—the distress of finding that their personal possessions, including some of great sentimental value, have been reduced to a soggy mess.
Wherefore your petitioners pray that your Honourable House ask the Secretaries of State for Agriculture and the Environment to make all necessary funds available for (1) a fully adequate flood alleviation scheme for Truro to ensure that people and properties are properly protected and,
(2) compensation for the victims of inadequate flood alleviation provisions.

To lie upon the Table.

Aerosols

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]

Mr. Peter Fry: I sincerely welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman) to his new post. I do so with added enthusiasm because he represents my neighbouring constituency and is my Member of Parliament. His new appointment has given me considerable pleasure, as it will his other constituents.
Last Christmas, my constituent, Darren Robertson—or Barber—was almost 16 years old. He seemed a normal teenager, perhaps subject to the varied moods of many of his age, but not unusually so. His mother had to go into hospital for a while. When she returned home she and her husband noticed a change in Darren's behaviour. His moods became more unpredictable; he was difficult to talk to; his parents told me that they could not get through to him; he did not want to go to school and played truant; he stayed out at night; he seemed unhappy.
Naturally, his parents were concerned. They asked Darren whether he was taking drugs. He said that he was not. There were no extra demands for money from them, so they thought that perhaps that was true. However, they were still worried, so they approached his school and his year tutor. They did not know whether Darren had begun any drug-related abuse.
Darren's parents contacted the local police, but as he was under 16 years of age until February and was at school and living at home the police felt that he was no part of their responsibility. The parents tried the NSPCC, which responded that it was concerned with younger children and abuses against them. They tried the county council's social services department, which told them that this was a grey area. Nobody offered constructive advice to them. Wherever they turned, there was no local assistance. No counselling was available.
On 17 April Darren was dead as a result of inhaling from an aerosol. His parents were devastated, but they have now become very concerned that his death should not be a complete waste. Mrs. Barber, Darren's mother, is particularly concerned that lessons should be drawn from their dreadful experience and that further action should be taken, somehow, to deter and prevent similar tragedies.
A number of aspects relating to this matter are particularly worthy of note. Far too many young people are involved in solvent abuse. The craze—for that is what it is, in the true sense of that word—began with glue sniffing. Legislation made glue sniffing more difficult, so others moved on to Tipp-Ex and other correcting fluids. Stationers became aware of that threat, so more and more youngsters have recently turned to lighter fuels—butane gas—and aerosols.
Every home in the land must contain several aerosols. It is impossible to check their sale and use in the family home. The risk of death is therefore standing in every bathroom cabinet and on every dressing table. Inhalation, followed by any violent physical activity, such as dancing, cycling or running, could easily lead to sudden cardiac arrest and death.
I had fondly imagined that the new ozone-friendly aerosols, which will have taken over by the end of next year, would remove much of that danger, but a pathologist has told me that that is not correct and that the new

aerosols can be as deadly as the old. What has become clear is that many young people indulge in solvent abuse, that far too many die as a result—about two every week —and that 25 per cent. die from inhaling aerosols.
Various organisations, such as Re-Solv, have been established, and they do excellent work. Mr. Barry Liss of Re-Solv has been very helpful to me in providing background information. Unfortunately, however, not just parents but many other bodies—for example, schools —seem to be either unaware of the existence of these organisations or unwilling to ask for the advice that they can give. Also, when action is taken, it is not always as helpful as it might be. The pamphlet issued by the British pharmaceutical industry, entitled "Understanding Drug Abuse", contains many helpful facts and comments, but among them I read, in the paragraph entitled "Dangers":
There are risks but death or permanent damage to the body is very unlikely in most cases.
Whatever truth there may be in that statement—and as many thousands of young people are taking part in such abuse there is probably some truth in it—the fact remains that two young people die every week, a loss which I contend is far too great and which we must try to reduce. Furthermore, 20 per cent. of the deaths occur from a first attempt at inhalation. The other 80 per cent. of those who died had indulged in the practice before—often frequently. Bluntly, we are facing a deadly habit which is destroying far too many young people just as their personalities are developing and their lives are becoming richer and opening up opportunities.
What has been the Government's official response? Much good work has been done, but the feeling is growing that it has all been somewhat low profile. For example, it has been decided that aerosols should not have a warning printed on them as it might encourage youngsters to start sniffing them. My response to that is that once a teenager starts sniffing he or she is likely to continue. It seems that the young already know far more than adults about the temptation.
The only sensible advice is: do not start. Just one sniff can mean that a youngster is no longer a rational human being, and addiction can begin. Perhaps the Government should reconsider their attitude to warnings on aerosol cans. As the number of tragedies continues to grow, surely we are obliged to deal with the problem more effectively. After all, many more are dying from solvent abuse than from salmonella poisoning from eggs, and we became concerned enough about that recently.
I am not trying to be alarmist; that would not help. But it seems that a different and rather stronger approach is now needed. A softly softly approach has not saved the many who have died.
What am I asking the Government to do? One of the main problems seems to be the level of awareness among adults—particularly parents—of how widespread and dangerous such practices have become. First, there is a clear need for a campaign to increase awareness among adults, perhaps through late-night television advertising warning of the dangers and explaining the signs to look for when a teenager is indulging in an abuse.
Even when parents are aware of the problems—as Mr. and Mrs. Barber were—more information and help are required. It is worth mentioning that Re-Solv, together with the Royal Society of Medicine, has produced a video


entitled, "Bombshell" dealing with the problem of solvent abuse. I hope that PTAs and other parent bodies will obtain a copy as compulsory viewing.
Secondly, there appears to be a need for an educational programme for the young, particularly in secondary schools. To avoid the possiblility of encouraging teenagers to experiment, perhaps it should cover more than aerosol or solvent abuse and should include other dangers such as the abuse of alcohol. It should be clearly explained but not shockingly presented so that we can help our teenagers to develop a balanced lifestyle and encourage them to take the right decisions of their own accord and not because adults have told them to do so.
Already there is a virtual wall of silence about such abuses and often knowledge is denied. As most of us know, the teenage years are often most difficult when communication between parents and children is at its weakest. Mothers and fathers are often the last to know, even when a fatality occurs.
My third suggestion clearly comes from Darren's case —more information and help should be readily available to parents. Counselling should be on offer. If parents cannot get through to their children, expert advice is essential. We need to put more resources into advertising telling parents what help is available. It is insufficient for local education authorities to be members of organisations such as Re-Solv. Each secondary school should have at least one member of staff to whom all suspected cases can be referred by other teachers and by parents. That staff member should be able to refer to an agency which will give immediate advice. There should be no need for parents such as Darren's to complain that they could not get adequate help and advice. Furthermore, parents should be told that such a local contact exists.
Aerosol sniffing is part of a wider abuse, a deep malaise among our young. The play-it-down, low profile approach has not worked. Most parents feel that it is not their problem, that it happens to other people's children. The time has come to treat this unnecessary destroyer of young lives as the malignant disease that it is. We must devote more resources to try to reduce and eradicate it. Let us have the courage to debate this whole matter more openly in order to encourage parents to be on the alert. The time has come to be more open about the dangers and the possible solutions.
I can understand the British Aerosol Manufacturers Association writing to me and wanting to play down any warning on its cans. Has this been the right decision? Surely the matter needs to be re-examined. I ask the Government to do more to publicise the dangers to parents, teachers and the young. They should do more to encourage and assist bodies trying to cope with the problem, and we should make sure that practical assistance is available to those who need help. If the Government will do that and accept that a higher profile is needed, there will be much greater public awareness. Perhaps then we shall not have so many grief-stricken parents saying despairingly, "We did not know." If we make progress in combating this evil, our short debate will have been wonderfully worthwhile and Darren Robertson's death will not be the complete waste that it appeared to be at the time.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Roger Freeman): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) for his kind opening remarks and congratulate him on securing this Adjournment debate on this important subject. As a Back Bencher, I was interested in the subject on behalf of my constituents in the neighbouring constituency of Kettering.
The Government are very concerned about the harm caused by solvent misuse. We have all been saddened and shocked at the deaths of nine-year-old Sally Hodge of Bristol and of Mark Ashmore of Killingworth, and my hon. Friend has told the House about the death of Darren Robertson. Solvent misuse can have tragic consequences even for the curious experimenter as well as for someone who has a chronic problem, as the death of Sally Hodge illustrates.
Solvent misuse is a means of achieving intoxication by the deliberate inhalation of fumes given off by volatile substances. Substances misused are many and varied and usually include common household items such as glues, aerosol sprays, nail varnish remover, and lighter fuel. We are aware of a trend in recent years towards the misuse of aerosols in particular. Misuse is generally among the 10 to 19-year-old age group with a peak in the mid teens. For most of those young people who are tempted to try it, thank goodness it is a short-lived activity of experimentation often conducted in peer groups. However, for some, misuse may become prolonged.
In the short term health risks may arise through accidents while the sniffer is intoxicated, from suffocation where large plastic bags may be used, or from the direct toxic effects of the chemical inhaled. Some products, notably aerosol gases, sensitise the heart and can cause heart failure, especially if sniffers exert themselves at the same time. Gas squirted directly into the mouth can cause death from suffocation. Very prolonged misuse, over years, may lead to organ damage or psychological difficulties. However, despite these possibilities, lasting damage appears to be rare. Although tolerance develops with long-term use, physical dependence is not a significant problem. Where psychological dependence develops it is usually in a minority of susceptible youngsters with underlying family or personality problems.
I strongly join my hon. Friend in underlining the point that solvent abuse can kill and that misuse of aerosol cans can cause death at the first misuse. It is difficult to estimate the extent of solvent misuse. It seems to become common in a small area, such as an estate or school, and may quickly disappear, perhaps leaving a residue of prolonged misusers.
The Government rely on St. George's hospital medical school for comprehensive data on solvent-related deaths, which are gleaned from press accounts and followed up with coroners and other authorities. The figures may underestimate the numbers involved. In the latest year for which figures are available–1987–there were 108 deaths compared with 98 in 1986 and 116 in 1985. Although we appear to be on something of a plateau, they are horrifying figures, representing on average two deaths a week. Of those deaths, 31 were attributable to aerosols in 1987 compared with 21 in 1986 and 20 in 1985. Those figures are deeply saddening.


The harm caused by solvent misuse has led us to take a number of measures to make solvents less readily available to young people; to help parents and professionals respond to the problem; and to educate young people about the dangers. My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough made a number of suggestions, with which I will deal as I cover the present range of measures.
What steps have the Government taken? In cooperation with retailers, backed by the Intoxicating Substances (Supply) Act 1985, we are making lighter fuel, aerosols and solvent-based products harder to obtain for the purpose of misuse. I am sure that hon. Members will join me in underlining the fact that we cannot prevent dangerous products from reaching the hands of determined youngsters directly, or perhaps through their older brothers, sisters or friends. Since 1985 we have tried to ensure that retailers understand the dangers and try to control the misuse of products purchased in shops.
With help from the Government, Re-Solv, which is the Society for the Prevention of Solvent and Volatile Substance Abuse, has issued clear guidelines to retailers on the sale of sniffable products to children and young people. I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to its valuable work under the direction of Mr. Barry Liss. The guidelines are based on those agreed generally with trade representatives and include full details of the 1985 Act; 300,000 copies have been issued to date. I am pleased to say that this year the Government have contributed a further £15,000 to Re-Solv to make further copies available. We have also contributed to the production of Re-Solv's staff training video, which advises retailers about the 1985 Act. I understand that in 1987 there were 11 successful prosecutions under the Act.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough raised the subject of the labelling of aerosol cans. I shall reflect on that possibility and write to him, but the label on an aerosol can is unlikely in most cases to prevent a youngster who is experimenting, and who perhaps has been introduced to solvent abuse, from obtaining and using an aerosol. I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that there are 30 household products capable of misuse. Unfortunately, aerosol cans are only one of a number of such products.
My hon. Friend is rightly concerned about emphasising to parents the dangers of solvent abuse. Helping parents to respond to solvent misuse must be a key factor in dealing with the problem. I am pleased that the Government were able to make a contribution to the Re-Solv video that was launched earlier this year, which aims to raise adult awareness of the problem and show ways to prevent it. I am told that approximately 300 copies have been distributed. I have seen it and it is entitled "A Bombshell? What every Parent should know about Solvent Abuse." It may be helpful if I place a copy in the Library. I will discuss early in the new year with colleagues of other Departments assistance with the cost of its distribution. The production of the video is a costly exercise, but the Government have assisted with it, and we must ensure that it is properly distributed. I am seized of the point that my hon. Friend has made, and I will pursue it.
By implication, my hon. Friend suggested that the Government should go further in helping with the supply

of educational videos. He talked about late-night television—obviously directed at parents. I have noted his comments and will reflect on his advice.
We have sought also to ensure that professional workers have the fullest and most up-to-date information available to them. My Department funded a post at the National Children's Bureau for three years, ending last year, to collate, interpret and disseminate to interested workers advice and information on solvent misuse. Following that, we funded training seminars for residential care workers organised by the bureau, and we are currently funding an information officer post at the bureau. We hope that that post will be filled in the new year and that the officer will be able to reach professional workers such as youth workers, social service workers and those involved in residential care.
The Department of Education and Science has also funded a research project by the Institute for the Study of Drug Dependence to produce high-profile curriculum and consultation materials about drugs. Those materials are designed to help youth and community workers respond positively to the problems that young people face with solvents, alcohol and illegal drugs. In 1986, Her Majesty's inspectorate also produced guidance for teachers in dealing with suspected cases of solvent misuse and mounting health education.
Finally, but by no means of least importance, we are taking steps to educate young people about the dangers of solvent misuse. There is widespread agreement among teachers and those concerned with education that teaching about solvents is best tackled in the wider context of all forms of substance misuse. We do not want to dramatise it, glamourise it or isolate it. It must be seen as part of wider education, including obviously alcohol and drugs.
The Department of Education and Science currently funds annual expenditure by local education authorities of over £4 million for in-service teacher training on drugs issues, including solvents, and to employ drug education co-ordinators in every local authority. Most drug co-ordinators now see issues to do with solvents as an inseparable part of their drug education activities.
My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) is present. He, my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough and I, representing Northamptonshire constituencies, share concern for the problem. In our county, the education authority set up a team of a youth worker, a teacher, and an education welfare officer to train teachers in what is called personal and social educational techniques. That includes solvent abuse.
My hon. Friend has raised some important and specific suggestions about how to ensure that the message reaches children and about how to advise parents on who to turn to at schools to discuss solvent abuse problems. My hon. Friend has referred to the case of Darren Robertson and the problems that his parents encountered about knowing who to turn to. I am sure that my colleagues at the Department of Education and Science are aware of his thoughts. My hon. Friend will appreciate that this problem is not for the Department of Health alone.
The recent, well publicised cases serve to remind us of the potentially tragic consequences of solvent misuse. However, we must keep the problem in perspective. Mercifully, most young people never try it, and, for the great majority of those who do, it is a passing phase. But that must not lead us to be complacent. We must continue to work hard to ensure that children know the dangers,


that shopkeepers and parents reduce the chances of aerosols and solvent-based products getting into the wrong hands, and that those who work with young people can respond to the problem.
My hon. Friend has done the House a valuable service by raising this subject. I share his concern and will give it the serious attention that it deserves.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to One o'clock.